Nostalgia and Philosophy-Consumption or the Hyperreality of “Filipino Philosophy"

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
Aldrin Matthew L. Go
{"title":"Nostalgia and Philosophy-Consumption or the Hyperreality of “Filipino Philosophy\"","authors":"Aldrin Matthew L. Go","doi":"10.25138/15.1.a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the prevailing agenda of philosophical discourse and inquiry in the Philippine academe is to problematize the existence and status of Filipino philosophy. Filipino professors of philosophy have claimed that the existence of Filipino philosophy is already answered and no longer a legitimate subject of debate. However, the “answer” that ultimately puts this question to rest remains ambiguous. My objective in this paper is to provide an account of this ambiguity and to go through the two pathological responses towards the problem of Filipino Philosophy, namely, (1) the nostalgia for an “authentic” Filipino essence and (2) the culture of philosophy-consumption. The paper consists of three sections: (1) a critique of Abulad’s diachronic schematization of Filipino philosophy, (2) a critique of Mercado’s attempt to salvage the project of indigenization in his short essay Reflections on the Status of Filipino Philosophy, and (3) a critique of the culture of philosophy-consumption through a return to the problems identified by Emerita Quito in The State of Philosophy in the Philippines and an examination of F. P. A. Demeterio III’s taxonomy of Filipino philosophy.","PeriodicalId":41978,"journal":{"name":"Kritike-An Online Journal of Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kritike-An Online Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25138/15.1.a3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

One of the prevailing agenda of philosophical discourse and inquiry in the Philippine academe is to problematize the existence and status of Filipino philosophy. Filipino professors of philosophy have claimed that the existence of Filipino philosophy is already answered and no longer a legitimate subject of debate. However, the “answer” that ultimately puts this question to rest remains ambiguous. My objective in this paper is to provide an account of this ambiguity and to go through the two pathological responses towards the problem of Filipino Philosophy, namely, (1) the nostalgia for an “authentic” Filipino essence and (2) the culture of philosophy-consumption. The paper consists of three sections: (1) a critique of Abulad’s diachronic schematization of Filipino philosophy, (2) a critique of Mercado’s attempt to salvage the project of indigenization in his short essay Reflections on the Status of Filipino Philosophy, and (3) a critique of the culture of philosophy-consumption through a return to the problems identified by Emerita Quito in The State of Philosophy in the Philippines and an examination of F. P. A. Demeterio III’s taxonomy of Filipino philosophy.
怀旧与哲学消费还是“菲律宾哲学”的超现实
菲律宾学术界哲学话语和研究的主流议程之一是对菲律宾哲学的存在和地位提出问题。菲律宾哲学教授声称,菲律宾哲学的存在已经得到了回答,不再是一个合法的辩论主题。然而,最终解决这个问题的“答案”仍然模糊不清。我在本文中的目的是对这种模糊性进行解释,并通过对菲律宾哲学问题的两种病理反应,即(1)对“真实”菲律宾本质的怀念和(2)哲学消费文化。本文共分三个部分:(1)对阿布拉德对菲律宾哲学的历时图式的批判,(3)通过对埃梅里塔·基多在《菲律宾哲学状况》中提出的问题的回归,以及对F.P.a.德米特里奥三世的菲律宾哲学分类法的考察,对哲学消费文化进行了批判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信