LESSON 1: PURSUING WISDOM AND

FACING CHALLENGES
By : Earl Louiscel P. Basco IN THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
 Learning competencies:
1. Distinguish between a holistic perspective and a partial point of view;
2. Recognize human activities that arose from deliberate reflection;
3. Realize the value of doing philosophy in obtaining a broad and balanced
perspective in life;
4. Do a philosophical reflection on specific and practical life situations from
a holistic perspective;
5. Appreciate Filipino indigenous values and thinking; and
6. Seek wisdom from within and from trusted sources
Introduction: Doing Philosophy

•Diversity
•“Different”
•Exclusion
•Harassment
The Meaning of Philosophy
• Etymologically, the word Philosophy comes from 2 Greek words, Philo which means “to love” and
Sophia, meaning “wisdom.” Philosophy originally meant “love of wisdom.”
• Scientific Approach
• Natural Light of Reason
• Study of All Things
• First Cause or the Highest Principle
• Principle of Identity
• Principle of Noncontradiction
• Principle of Excluded Middle
• Principle of Sufficient Reason
Scientific Approach

• It uses scientific approach because the investigation is systematic.

It follows certain steps or it employs certain procedures. It follows
certain steps or it employs certain procedures. In other words, it is
an organized body of knowledge just like any other sciences.
Natural Light of Reason

• Philosophy investigates things, neither by using any laboratory

instruments or investigative tools, nor on the basis of supernatural
revelation; otherwise, it becomes theology. Instead, philosopher uses his
natural capacity to think or observe the world and people.
Study of All Things

• This sets the distinction between philosophy and other sciences. All other sciences
concern themselves with a particular object of investigation.
For example:
• anthropologists study human being in relations to the society; sociologists study
society, its form, structures, and functions; botanists focus their attention to plants;
linguists limit themselves in languages; theologians investigate God; whereas, a
philosopher studies human beings, society, religion, language, and plants among
other concerns.
First Cause or the Highest Principle

• An idea which means something is the main and first cause why an event of
situation took place. It is a principle because everything in the world and every
situation has a starting point or a beginning.
Principle of Identity
Principle of Noncontradiction
Principle of Excluded Middle
Principle of Sufficient Reason
o Principle of Identity
• Whatever is is; and whatever is not is not; everything is what it is. Everything
is its own being, and not being is not being. It means a thing, idea, or person
always has a name, a concept, and a characteristic for that thing to exist.
o Principle of Noncontradiction
• It is impossible for a thing to be and not to be at the same time, and at the
same respect.
o Principle of Excluded Middle
• A thing is either is or is not; everything must be or not be or not be; between
being and not being, there is no middle ground possible.
o Principle of Sufficient Reason
• Nothing exists without a sufficient reason for its being and existence.
 ACTIVITY TIME!!
20mins

• In your own words, how would you define

philosophy?
• Is there a meaning to studying philosophy?
• Can you see a reason to study philosophy?
• Finally, in attaining wisdom, there is a need for emptying. Emptying is suspending one’s judgement
and conclusion about a matter and mentally exploring the pros and cons, the characteristics, and the
purpose of an idea or situation. This means not being affected by personal biases and stereotypes so
we can make a fair assessment of things.
• Emptying can be intellectual. For instance,
- Taoists consider an empty cup is more useful than a full one. This means simplicity and humility.
• Emptying can also be spiritual.
- For Christian philosophy, poor in spirit means compassion.
• Emptying is also physical.
- The Buddhists refrain from misuse of the senses, thereby emphasizing a unified whole (Elgin, 2009)
• Without the virtue of emptying, students will only learn partial philosophy that is knowledge-based
without becoming holistic (i.e., acquiring wisdom through various dimensions of being human
including the psychological, social, emotional and moral aspects).
 Recognizing Human Activities That Emanate
From Deliberate Reflection
• Branches of Philosophy
A. Metaphysics
B. Ethics
1. Divine Command
2. Consequentialism or Utilitarianism
3. Deontological ethics
4. Virtue ethics
5. Relativism
C. Epistemology
D. Logic
E. Aesthetics
Metaphysics
Is only an extension of the fundamental and necessary drive in every
human being to know what is real. What is reality, why does reality exist, and
how does it exist are just some of the questions pursued by metaphysics. The
questions is how to account for this unreal thing in terms of what you can
accept as real. Thus, a very big part of a metaphysician’s task is to explain that
part of our experience, which we call unreal in terms of what we call real. This
means the concept of thought, idea, existence, reality, being, and other abstract
ideas of life are understood and analyzed using what is physically seen in the
world and vice versa.
 In our everyday attempts to understand the world in terms of appearance and reality,
we try to make things comprehensible and sensible in the ordinary way of understanding
the world by simplifying or reducing the mass of things we call appearance to a relatively
fewer number of things we call reality. Reality here is referred to in metaphysics as “true
reality”, meaning it is the fundamental source and basis of all reality in the world and in
existence. Metaphysics assumes that the reality we see with our eyes is just a temporary
cover of the true reality that exists beyond what our senses could perceive.
For instance, for Thales, a Greek philosopher, everything is water. He claimed that
everything is water—which we call “reality.” Everything else is “appearance.” We then
set out to try to explain everything else (appearance) in terms of water (reality). For
example, clouds or blocks of ice do not look like water, but they can be explained in
terms of water. Thales believed that the principle beyond all existence and can be
explained by water analogy. In fact, water for Thales is the fundamental shape and
movement of all things in the universe.
 Both idealist and materialist metaphysical theories are similarly based on
unobservable entities: mind and matter. We can see things made of matter such as a
book or a chair, but we cannot see the underlying matter itself. Although we can
experience in our minds, thoughts, ideas, desires, and fantasies, we cannot observe or
experience the mind itself that us having these thoughts, ideas, and desires. It is this
tendency to explain the observable in term of the unobservable that has given
metaphysics a bad name to more down-to-earth philosophers.
Plato, Socrates’ most famous student, is a good example of a metaphysician who drew
the sharpest possible contrast and division between reality and appearance. Nothing we
experience in the physical world with our five senses is real, according to Plato. Reality,
in fact, is just the opposite. It means that reality is an invisible but concrete true
representation of all physical reality that the eye can see. Plato called these realities as
ideas of forms. These are meanings which universal general terms refer to, and they are
also those things we talk about when we discuss moral, mathematical, and scientific
ideals.
Ethics
Is honor with deceit worth attaining? How do we distinguish good from
evil or right from wrong? Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle asked those
fundamental questions concerning happiness and the meaning of life; so did
Du Bois when he confronted the struggles of African-Americans and
advocated equal rights. The news about a man who set a casino on fire and
those who committed suicide for allegedly losing millions in gambling delved
into the complexity of our judgement, on how our actions affect others. While
in I, Robot, a film about artificial intelligence, machines’ abilities in discerning
good from bad were explored.
W.E.B. Du Bois
William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (1868–1963) believed that his life acquired its only deep
significance through its participation in what he called “the Negro problem,” or, later, “the race
problem.” Whether that is true or not, it is difficult to think of anyone, at any time, who examined
the race problem in its many aspects more profoundly, extensively, and subtly than W.E.B. Du
Bois. Du Bois was an activist and a journalist, a historian and a sociologist, a novelist, a critic, and
a philosopher—but it is the race problem that unifies his work in these many domains.
Du Bois contributes to our specifically philosophical understanding of race and the race
problem, because he treats these themes as objects of philosophical consideration—indeed, it is
largely through an engagement with Du Bois’s work that many contemporary philosophers have
come to appreciate race and race-related concerns as fruitful topics of philosophical reflection.
Through his work in social philosophy, political philosophy, and the philosophy of art, Du Bois,
for all intents and purposes, invented the field of philosophy and race, thereby unsettling and
revising our views of the proper scope and aims of philosophical inquiry.
 Ethics is the branch of philosophy that explores the nature of moral virtue
and evaluates the morality and virtue of human actions. Ethicists who study
morality from the perspective of philosophy appeal to logical arguments to
justify claims and positions involving morality. They use ethical theory in the
analysis and deliberation of issues.
Religion has often helped motivate the individuals to obey laws and moral
code of their society, philosophy is not content with traditional or habitual
ethics but adapts a critical perspective. It insists that obedience to moral law
be given a rational foundation. In the thought of Socrates, we see the
beginning of a transition from a traditional, religion-based morality to
philosophical ethics (Landsburg, 2009).
Ethics has five main frameworks:
1. Divine Command—What does God ordain us to do? reasoning of St. Teresa of
Calcutta and St. Lorenzo Ruiz are exemplars of this Theory
2. Consequentialism or utilitarianism—What has the most desirable consequences?
Jeremy Bentham, stoics, and Epicureans are the authors of this ethical theory. Example:
If killing a cow is a way to save starving children, then killing the cow is moral.
3. Deontological ethics—Whatever is my moral duty to do. For example, if Hitler is
drowning, you must save him because it is wrong to let a person die. This act is a moral
duty, or in Kant’s words, a “moral imperative” and is not dependent on a person’s
opinions of Hitler is innocent. It only means he must be helped despite his evilness
because saving is a moral duty every human is obligated to do. Immanuel Kant is the
author of this ethical theory that may also be known as duty ethics or Kantianism. His
categorical imperative yielded unqualified absolutes (Pojman, 2006)
4. Virtue ethics—What kind of person I ought to be. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are some examples. This ethical
theory ignores the consequences, duties, and social contracts. Instead, it focuses on character development of
individuals and their acquisition of good virtue ethics (Tavani, 2011)
5. Relativism—What does my culture or society think I ought to do? The divine command discusses how personal
religious beliefs and spiritual attitudes are especially important commitments that are relevant to personal and
professional lives (Martin & Schinzinger, 2005). Such religious and spiritual beliefs includes:
Cultural appropriateness

Openness
Stewardship
Harmony
Justice
Caring and
Trustworthiness
For utilitarians, self-interest should enter into our calculations of the overall good. Duty ethics emphasizes our duties to
ourselves. Virtue ethics links our personal good with participating in communities and social practices.
 “When in Rome, do as Romans do” is a view of ethical relativism that actions are morally right
within a particular within a particular society when they are approved by law, custom, or other
conventions of the society. Closely related to this is ethical relationism which is about making
judgements based on a context (i.e., culture); while ethical pluralism is a view that there is more than
just one justifiable moral perspective (Martin & Schinzinger, 2005) affirm cultural diversity and
respect differences among individuals and groups.
Nevertheless, international rights offer basic and universal standards which are the most
commonly applied ethical theory in making cross-cultural moral judgements anytime and anywhere in
the world. A human right is a moral entitlement that places obligations on other people to treat one
with dignity and respect. International rights include the right to physical movement, the right to
ownership of property, the right to freedom from torture, and the right to a fair trial.
 Present-day ethical issues, including hacking, intellectual property
disputes, financial scams, and cyber terrorism pose serious cybersecurity
concerns. Due to the increasing use of technology to gather and store
personal information, contemporary analysts view privacy as one's ability to
restrict access to and control the flow of one's personal information. Privacy,
as to who should have access to one's personal information, became the focal
point of moral responsibility, legal liability, and accountability (Tavani,
2011).
Epistemology

Specifically, epistemology deals with the nature, sources, limitations, and validity
of knowledge (Soccio, 2007). Epistemological questions are basic to all other
philosophical inquiries. Epistemology explains: (1) how we know what we claim to
know; (2) how we can find out what we wish to know; and (3) how we can differentiate
truth from falsehood. Epistemology addresses varied problems: the reliability, extent,
and kinds of knowledge; truth; language; and science and scientific knowledge. How
do we acquire reliable knowledge? Human knowledge may be regarded as having two
parts.
 On the one hand, he sees, hears, and touches; on the other hand, he organizes in his mind what
he learns through the senses. Philosophers have given considerable attention to questions about the
sources of knowledge. Some philosophers think that the particular things seen, heard, and touched
are more important. They believe that general ideas are formed from the examination of particular
facts. This method is called induction, and philosophers who feel that knowledge is acquired in this
way are called empiricists (e.g., John Locke). Empiricism is the view that knowledge can be
attained only through sense experience. According to empiricists, real knowledge is based on what
our sight, hearing, smell, and other senses tell us is really out there, not what people make up in
their heads. Knowledge for empiricists are based on facts and evidence that we can see and perceive
in the world.
• Other philosophers think it is more important to find a general law according to which
particular facts can be understood or judged. This method is called deduction; its advocates are
called rationalists (e.g., Rene Descartes). For instance, what distinguishes real knowledge from
mere opinion, in the rationalist view, is that real knowledge is based on logic, laws, and methods
that reason develops. The best example of real knowledge, the rationalist holds, is mathematics, a
realm of knowledge that is obtained entirely by reason that we use to understand the universe
(Soccio, 2007). A newer school, pragmatism, has a third approach to these problems. Pragmatists,
such as William James and John Dewey, believe that value in use is the real test of truth and
meaning. In other words, the meaning and truth of an idea are tested by its practical consequences.
John Locke René Descartes
Logic
Reasoning is the concern of the logician. This could be reason in science and medicine, in ethics and
law, in politics and commerce sports and games, and in the mundane affairs of everyday living. varied
kinds of reasoning may be used, and all are of interest to the logician. 
The term "logic” comes from the Greek word logike and was coined by Zeno the Stoic (c. 340-265
BC). Etymologically, it means a treatise to matters pertaining to the human thought. It is important to
underpin that logic does not provide us knowledge of the world directly, for logic is considered as a
tool, and, therefore, does not contribute directly to the content of our thoughts. Logic is not interested
in what we know regarding certain subjects. Its concern, rather, is the truth or the validity of our
arguments regarding such objects.
Aristotle was the first philosopher to devise a logical method. He drew upon the emphasis on the
"universal" in Socrates, negation in Parmenides and Plato, and the reduction to the absurd of Zeno of
Elea. His philosophy is also based on claims about propositional structure and the body of
argumentative techniques (e.g., legal reasoning and geometrical proof).
 Aristotle understood truth to mean the agreement of knowledge with reality; truth exists when the
mind's mental representations, otherwise known as ideas, correspond with things in the objective world.
Logical reasoning makes us certain that our conclusions are true, and this provides us with accepted
scientific proofs of universally valid propositions or statements. Since the time of Aristotle, the study of
lies or fallacies has been considered an integral part of logic.
Zeno of Citium was one of the successors of Aristotle. He was also the founder of a movement known
as Stoicism, derived from the Greek Stoa Poikile (Painted Porch). The Painted Porch referred to the
portico in Athens where the early adherents held their regular meetings. Other more influential authors of
logic then are Cicero, Porphyry, and Boethius in the later Roman Empire; the Byzantine scholar,
Philoponus; and Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes in the Arab world.
Even before the time of Aristotle down to the time of Turing, the study of logic has remained
important. We are human beings possessed with reason. We use it when we make decisions or when we
try to influence the decisions of others or when we are engaged in argumentation and debate. Indeed, a
person who has studied logic is more likely to reason correctly than another, who has never thought about
the general principles involved in reasoning.
Aesthetics
When humanity has learned to make something that is useful to them they begin to plan and dream how to make it
beautiful. What therefor beauty? The establishment of criteria of beauty is the function of aesthetic Aesthetics is the
science of the beautiful in its various manifestations including the sublime, comic, tragic, pathetic, and ugly. To
experience aesthetics, therefore, means whatever experience has relevance to art whether the experience be that of the
creative artist or or appreciation As a branch of philosophy, students should consider the importance of aesthetics
because of the following:
1. It vitalizes our knowledge. It makes our knowledge of the world alive and useful. We go through our days picking
up a principle as fact, here and there, and too infrequently see how they are related. It is the part of a play, a poem, or a
story to give us new insight, to help us see
2. It helps us live more deeply and richly. A work of art—whether a book, a piece of music, painting, or a television show-
helps us rise from purely physical existence into the realm of intellect and the spirit. As a being of body and soul, a
human being needs nourishment for his higher life as well as his lower. Art, therefore, is not something merely like
craft or applied arts, but something of weight and significance to humankind. It is what Schopenhauer meant when he
said, "You must treat a work of art like a great man. Stand before it and wait patiently until it deigns to speak."
(Scruton et al., 2001)
3. It brings us in touch with our culture. Things about us change so rapidly nowadays that we forget how much we owe to
the past. We cannot shut ourselves off from the past anymore than we can shut ourselves off geographically from the
rest of the world. It is difficult that the great problems of human life have occurred over and over again to thousands of
years. The answers of great minds in the past to these problems are part of our culture.
 Hans-Georg Gadamer, a German philosopher, argued that our tastes and judgments regarding
beauty work in connection with one's own personal experience and culture. Gadamer believed that
our culture consists of the values and beliefs of our time and our society That is why a "dialogue" or
conversation is important in interpreting works of art (Ramiscal, 2012). 
A conversation involves an exchange between conversation partners that seek agreement about
some matter at issue consequently, such an exchange is never completely under the control of either
conversational partner, but is rather determined the matter at issue. Conversation and
understanding involve coming to an agreement. In this sense, all understanding is, according
Gadamer, interpretive, and insofar as all interpretation involves exchange between the familiar and
the alien, so all interpretation also translative.
Attaining a Comprehensive
Outlook in Life
Expanding Our Philosophical Frames:
Western and Non-Western Traditions
Many philosophers hold that there are three great original centers of philosophy in the world—Greek (or
Western), Indian, and Chinese All three arose as critical reflections on their own cultural tradition Historically
speaking, Asian classics of the Indians and the Chinese predate the oldest of Western classics. Indian and
Chinese philosophers of not also lived earlier than their Greek counterparts (Quito, 1991). During the first
centuries, there was more philosophical activity in the East than in the West. Before the Greek period, there
was hardly any activity in the West. Greeks before Thales did not have philosophy (Velasquez, 1999).
From the time of the Greek triumvirate (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle), there was a reversal. The Western
thinkers started to in feverish philosophical speculation, whereas the Asian thinkers began diminishing
philosophical activity. In our present century, almost all the major philosophical ideas emanate from Western
thinkers (Quito, 1991).
The attitudinal imperative is the assumption that the East does not make a rigorous
distinction between religion and philosophy. Basic philosophical concepts are shrouded
in religious beliefs and myths. However, it is a false conclusion that Eastern
philosophies, such as Chinese and Indian, are not sufficiently philosophical to be
considered philosophy but are more properly called "religion" or "mythology." In the
East, philosophy is religion and religion is philosophy. The Oriental does not separate
philosophical thought from religion that is life in action.
Second, life for Oriental thinkers is a translation of thought; it is philosophy in action.
Orientals believe that life must be the extension of thought, its fruit, and its application.
For Quito (1991), it is not accurate to judge that Asia is poor because of religion. Rather,
it is poor because it cannot accept the polarization or division of theory and practice, O
philosophy and religion, of its way of thinking and its way of living. Quito (1991)
suggested that only if Asia could fi by making religion and speculation go theory with
practice, then Asia, too, could become progressive like the West.
 The third attitudinal imperative is the acceptance of the validity of intuition and mysticism, the
readiness to revert to extra logical, if ne illogical modes of thinking. Orientals are perceived
transcending the illogical modes of thinking. Orientals are perceived transcending the limitations
of the human intellect and treading on a no-man's land where verification of one's premise is not
possible. Oriental thought does not follow a structured mode. By its very nature, it cannot but be
intuitive and mystic.
The West has but to theorize and speculate; no application to life is necessary. Such are the
Platonic, Hegelian, Kantian, and Fichtean theories to which the Western philosophers render lip
service; their application to practice is still being contested by other Western philosophers
(Mitchell, 2011). As Quito (1991) remarked: "the concept of all-at-once-ness which is the hallmark
of the mind of Asia is annoying to the Western mind which cannot shake off its structural mode of
thinking in terms of beginning and end, of before and after, of then and now and later. This is no
doubt applicable to individual things and events which the Asian mind does not reject, but when
the line of reasoning and understanding is raised from the fragmentary to the total, from the
piecemeal to the whole, from the part to that all of the world of things, the Asian mind balks at the
'illogic' of applying the same principles pertaining only to the fragments to that of the whole."
 For the Eastern version, life becomes illusory if we are attached to the which we are ensnared is
not what is. In terms of knowledge, our experience of the world presents us with dualistic distinctions
or subject/object. However, this is artificial; our egos fool us into seeing separation. The distinction
between the knower and the known is me/you or subject/object. H seeing separation. The distinction
bet essentially artificial for the Eastern version.

If logic is no longer able to solve a life problem, Asian mind resorts to intuition. From the very
fact that it thinks in a cyclic all-at-once-ness, it must resort to means other than the usual mental
processes applicable to the piecemeal and fragmentary. One should not therefore be surprised at its
propensity to mysticism, at its use of super-consciousness, or of the existence of a third eye or a sixth
sense. When the situation demands, it reverses the logical patterns (Mitchell, 2011).
Filipino Thinking: From Local to Global
It may sound presumptuous to speak of "Filipino thought" for the reason that the Philippines
could not very well speak of a tradition such as that of China, India, or Greco-Roman. Yet, for the
Filipino, there has to be "Filipino thought" or none at all. Like any other people, the Filipino must
eventually take consciousness of his own particular life and his world, his society and his gods in the
light of truth, and thereby realize his proper being (Reyes, 1990). However, the pioneering attempts to
formulate a Filipino philosophy share the fate of most pioneering works: the lack of refined tools and
predecessors upon whom to stand (Mercado, 1994).
Nevertheless, Filipinos do have their own philosophy. This section draws out elements or draws
sketches of the general lines of Filipino philosophy. The three dimensions of Filipino thought are
loob, Filipino concept of time, and bahala na. These attitudes and values constitute the hidden springs
of the Filipino mind.
1. Loob: Holistic and Interior Dimensions
Kagandahang-loob, kabutihang-loob, and kalooban are term that show sharing of one's self to others. For
Mercado (1994 interiority manifests itself in freedom. Loob puts one in touch with his fellow beings. Great
Philippine values, in fact, are essential interpersonal. The use of intermediaries or go-betweens, the value of
loyalty, hospitality, pakikisama (camaraderie, conformism), and respect to authority are such values that relate
to persons. In short, the Filipino generally believes in the innate goodness of the human being. Filipino ethics
has an internal code and sanction that flow from within itself. This ethics is more constant than other legalistic
moral philosophies that are rather negative. The Filipino, who stresses duties over rights, has plenty in common
with his Oriental neighbors such as the Chinese and the Indian.

2. Filipino Concept of Time

Moreover, the Filipino-whether Ilokano (Ti tao kasla kulintaba no agtayab, ngumato, bumaba) (Life is
like a wheel, sometimes you are up, and while sometimes you are down.), or Kapampangan ( Bie ket ang yatu,
mengari yang ruweda, mibabo, milalim, ing Dios nung bur na) (A human being is like a bird who flies up and
goes down)-prove that he believes in gulong ng palad (literally, "wheel of fortune") and hence, looks at life as a
series of ups and down (Timbreza, 1992). This philosophy of life makes the Filipino an unmitigated optimist.
When the so-called wheel of life is on the downtrend, he looks to the future with hope because life's wheel
cannot stay down forever. When one weeps, one will surely smile. The Filipino looks upon every event,
fortunate or unfortunate, as fleeting or transitory
3. Bahala Na
The pre-Spanish Filipino people believed in a Supreme Being. Batula or Bathala. However, in this regard,
the originality of Filipino thought will probably be precisely in his personalistic view of the universe (Timbreza,
2002). For Filipinos, humans live with cosmic spirits or presence.
Bathala is not an impersonal entity but rather a personal being that keeps the balance in the universe. Unlike the
Indian and the Chinese, a human being can forge some personal relationships with this deity because Bathala is
endowed with personality. The Filipino puts his entire trust in this Bathala who has evolved into the Christian
God (Mercado, 2000).
Filipino Thought and Values: Positive and
Negative Aspects

It is believed, however, that the Philippine values and system, in line with Filipino philosophy, are in dire
need to be used as positive motivation Beyond his family group, the Filipino sees himself belonging to a small
primary group in a dyadic, pyramidal fashion. In other words, he does not identify horizontally with his class that
cuts across the whole community but vertically with its authority figures distinguished by their wealth, power and
age. He receives protection and other favors from above and should be ready to do the same toward his ties
below. Reciprocating debts gratitude between coordinates and subordinates holds the whole group together-
superordinate and subordinate (utang na loob).
There was a consensus that Asia, being the seat of the world's oldest civilizations, does have a
philosophical character all on its own but that it will not surface unless local philosophers dig to the
roots of their own indigenous culture (Gripaldo, 2000). The nationalist challenge is still relevant
nowadays. In this vein, Gripaldo (2000) believed four important items to be considered:

1. replacing colonial consciousness with a nationalist consciousness thereby doing away with
colonial and crab mentality;
2. creation of a super industrial society;
3. utilization of education as the means of realizing the image of the future as a super industrial
society; and
4. choosing not just for one's self but for all humanity, for the nation, as a whole.
Philosophy: Transcending and Aiming for a
Life of Abundance
Abundance comes from the Latin term, abundare, meaning, "to overflow nonstop" (Aguilar, 2010). In
Pido Aguilar's The Gift of Abundance, abundance was given a new spiritual, even Buddhist paradigm.
Abundance is outflowing rather than incoming. It is not about amassing material things or people but our
relationship with others, ourselves, and with nature. Aguilar (2010) asserted that our very life belongs to
God.
Nowadays, we see the triumph of consumerism; immediate gratification of artificial wants is a selling
principle. Commercialization resulted to a massive rat race where everyone thinks merely of one's self.
Since we are spiritual human persons, abundance is not what we gather but what we scatter. Often,
abundance is equated to materialism, put it is when we raise our empty hands and surrender, when we do
not grab, when we are unattached to anything or anyone, when we offer oneself—all these are abundance.
Only if we have empty hands can we receive full blessings.
Philosophical Reflection

This section will emphasize the students' reflection of the lessons based on a holistic
perspective. Doing a philosophical reflection based on concrete situations from a holistic
perspective could be done through debate, discussions, essays, and other activities. These forms of
reflection will further develop the analytical skills of students, especially for evaluating arguments.
Consider the writing assignment in the Proposed Activities. Students should always consider
an agreeable thesis. Make sure to support critical claims by providing factual evidences. They
should also express reasons in support of a claim or claims (e.g., why an act is morally "right" or
"wrong").