Between Rupture and Renewal: A Journey Through Uncertainty in the Philippines

Perhaps our search for certainty is not a mark of wisdom but a stubborn refusal to embrace the unknown. In today’s Philippines, familiar traditions crumble under the weight of modern challenges. Headlines scream questions—“Is Philippines now a province of The Hague?”—while daring rescues of foreign hikers from remote mountains and massive infrastructure projects like Water Philippines 2025 remind us that life continues to surge forward unexpectedly.

This disintegration of long-held values, reminiscent of Durkheim’s anomie, leaves society adrift. Yet, in this void, a rare opportunity arises—a call to philosophize, to challenge inherited norms, and to weave new narratives from the threads of uncertainty. Perhaps it is in our restless questioning that we glimpse the true nature of progress.

Hans-Georg Gadamer’s words, etched during the chaos of postwar Germany, resonate with our current reality. He once said:

“In 1918, with the First World War in its last year, I graduated from the Holy Spirit Gymnasium in Breslau and enrolled in Breslau University. At that time, as I looked around, I had no idea that my path would eventually lead me into philosophy. [...] In the confusion which the First World War and its end had brought to the whole German scene, to try to mold oneself unquestioningly into the surviving tradition was simply no longer possible. And the perplexity we were experiencing was in itself already an impetus to philosophical questioning.”

In these words lies a quiet challenge—a demand to leave behind the comforts of unquestioned tradition and confront the unpredictable. Gadamer's testimony becomes a mirror in a country where even political figures like Sara Duterte confront the harsh realities of personal and national transformation. It shows us that the collapse of the old order is not an end but a necessary rupture that sparks the quest for something more profound.

He continued:

“In philosophy, it was obvious that merely accepting and continuing what the older generation had accomplished was no longer feasible for us in the younger generation. In the First World War’s grisly trench warfare and heavy artillery battles for position, the neo-Kantianism which had up to then been accorded a truly worldwide acceptance, though not undisputed, was just as thoroughly defeated as was the proud cultural consciousness of that whole liberal age... In our search we were limited, in practice, to the intra-German scene, where bitterness, mania for innovation, poverty, hopelessness, and yet also the unbroken will to live, all competed with each other in the youth of the time.”

Much like Gadamer’s generation, the modern Filipino stands at a crossroads. Our institutions no longer offer the surety they once did; our collective identity is questioned amid debates over sovereignty, legacy, and progress. In these tumultuous times—where every new headline, from digital defense summits to debates over “rice diplomacy” as a means to food security, forces us to re-examine what we once held as truth—the call to reimagine our future is as compelling as ever.

So, is our incapacity to settle into comfortable narratives a curse? Or is it the spark that fuels the kind of philosophical inquiry necessary to save us from ourselves? The irony is that questioning old certainties, the challenge to outdated paradigms, maybe the path to renewal. In questioning, we become the architects of our destiny, unafraid to learn from both the chaos of the past and the unpredictable promise of the future.

As we navigate these uncertain waters, Gadamer’s reflections remind us that to truly progress, we must first confront the disintegration of what we once believed unassailable. It is here, in the interplay of doubt and determination, that the future of the Philippines is quietly, yet resolutely, being written.

Postscript: I'm currently reading Gadamer for my MAEd Social Studies Thesis at Cebu Normal University. The excerpts from Gadamer resonate with my current question whether to do a PhD in Education/Social Science or to pivot into another MA now in philosophy. 

San Pedro: Usa Ka Biblical Theology (Part 1)

Kini ang unod sa usa sa weekly issues sa Catholic Faith Defenders (CFD) Tagbilaran. 

Read more »

First Steps to Making our Integrated Cognition Model More "Collingwoodian"

One gap we identified in the literature on historical thinking (the concept itself or its assessments) is that all extant models are not complete. Each extant model in the literature leaves out some acts that fit the definition of historical thinking. We call this "the problem of domain representation."

Instead of detailing how we came to identify this gap, this blog for now will briefly discuss our solution to this gap, and then some changes I have to make due to some of the points that were made clearer to me as I engaged with three more secondary sources on Collingwood. 

Before this, the secondary sources that I considered include The Foundations of History: Collingwood's Analysis of Historical Explanation book by Leach (2017) and Collingwood's The Idea of History: A Reader's Guide book by Johnson (2013). As of now, I will not list the journal articles that I consulted. The changes that I had to make are not due to a lack in the rigor of these sources, but a lack on my end in understanding these sources especially due to limitations regarding time and access.

The three new secondary sources that I have just recently consoluted consist in one book, one encylopedia entry, and one lecture. I read the History as a Science: The Philosophy of R.G. Collingwood book by van der Dussen (2012). Next, I read Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy's entry entitled "Robin George Collingwood" authored by D'Oro, et al., (2020). And I watched the lecture uploaded on the Michael Sugrue YT channel entitled "Dr. Darren Staloff, R.G. Collingwood's 'The Idea of History' " (2022).

Our solution is to make an explicit attempt to construct a collectively exhaustive or domain representative cognition model of historical thinking. This is not to claim that we are the first to aim for completeness in the cognition model that we construct, much less is this to say that we are the first to construct a cognition model of historical thinking. The novelty in our research is making this attempt explicit, thereby exposing how well we meet such aim to scrutiny. This transparency is essential to any field of scientific inquiry, and is also essential specifically to the larger research that we are undertaking entitled "Historical Thinking Skills and Fake News Susceptibility of Learners."

The model as of mid-September is uploaded in my ResearchGate profile. In the rest of this article, I detail just three of the changes that I intend to carry out. 

1. Clarity about Elements Described

Before. In our description of Collingwood's Theory, our list of elements described by the theory consists in (1) the historian, (2) the past, (3) the present, and (4) the future.

After. Now the elements are (1) the historian (as the subject doing historical thinking), and (2) the historical agent (as the object being studied), with a keen eye on (3) their context, either (3.1) spatio-temporal or (3.2) socio-cultural.  

Rationale. The change is necessary because the former list was too vague and restrictive.

2. Shift from Historical Perspective and Memory to Historical Presuppositions 

Before. The cognition model we constructed has three broad categories: (1) historical knowledge, (2) historical method, and (3)  historical perspective. For the purposes of clarity, we changed historical "knowledge" into historical "memory" so as not to pre-judge the truth value of the content remembered.

After. The modified version of the cognition model will now have these names: (1) historical method, and (2) historical presuppositions. Both "historical memory" and "historical perspective" are now encapsulated by the latter. And to distinguish between the two, historical memory is called "surface" historical presuppositions and historical perspective is called "deep" historical presuppositions.

Rationale. Collingwood emphasized that the assumption that the future will have the same regularities as the past are not propositions, but presuppositions. Through this, he countered Ayer's claim that this assumption is not meaningful (due to Hume's fork). It is still meaningful since it is a presupposition that serves as a condition of possibility for the scientific method to be applied. And because both memory and perspective are such, that is, presuppositions, then both are best encapsulated under it. Language of "surface" and "deep" presuppositions are exapted from Chomsky in his discussion of deep and surface structures. Commitments, perspectives, dispositions, or orientations just seem too obviously deeper than mere remembered facts.

3. Inclusion of Explanatory Pluralism and Non-Reductive Description of the Historical as to the Historical Commitments 

Before. Explanatory pluralism, that is, the commitment that an event may have many distinct yet compatible explanations was not among the listed deep historical presuppositions (formerly historical commitments/perspective). Something similar is true with a Non-Reductive Description of the Historical, since although inclusion of "historical-perspective taking" and "empathy" already imply it, neither explicitly captures it as a clear and distinct idea.

After. Both are now included.

Rationale. Both are essential to Collingwood's conception of historical thinking, as it is essential to historical thinking in and of itself.

There are more changes, but for now these three seem to suffice for one article.

Think of this article as an attempt at reflexivity prior to undertaking a huge task. It forces me to express my ideas in a way less restricted by an academic format. Feel free to critique our work so we can make improvements as necessary. 

On Preparing for the Future and Living the Moment

A few years ago, I succumbed to despair. I saw my future to be bleak, given the apparently inevitable immutability of the present. It was until somebody pushed me to believe in my power to turn things around that my perspective changed. 

This somebody made me believe that the future need not be bleak. And then her presence naturally flowed from being merely a cause for the reframing of my thinking, to being integral to the very constitution of the future that I wanted to build.

And then I messed up. Aware of the drastic difference between the future and the present, my attention was almost entirely consumed by the task of transforming the future. I failed to live the present moment. I failed to give the present, concrete her the time she currently deserves. 

And so she rightly recognized that the waiting game is now way too much. Much happened. It is clear, at least, that the very fabric of the future that I have been working for has been torn.

It seems, I fear, that I am descending back into that primordial hell. Perhaps, I should just let things be. The fabric has been torn. And I have lost the will to mend it.

Three Reasons to Write a Blog

(For one thing, I could now write without worrying about my horrible handwriting.)

This is my first blog. Ever. I have long been planning to start one, but I did not. I chose this topic mainly to convince myself to just do it. Even so, may this in some way help you too.

Most fear writing due to its permanence. But what is in permanence that screams for fright? It is the eternal exposition of one's incompetence. This fear has petrified me for some time. Today, I choose to overcome it.

I am starting to write my thoughts out despite my awareness that my future self will be ashamed at a lot of the things that I will write. This is because of at least three benefits of writing a blog that outweighs that feeling of cringe. 

#1: It clarifies thinking. 

Although clarity in thought does not entail clarity in writing, clarity in writing is a sign for clarity in thought. But why is clarity in thought even important? 

For one thing, we make decisions all the time. Each decisions springs from a proposition that you believe to be true. Each proposition, in turn, is composed of at least two concepts, conjoined by a copula which reveals a relation between the two concepts either of affirmation or negation. Concepts, therefore, are the foundation upon which actions are built. 

Just as the sturdiness of the foundation of a house is inherited by the entire building, so is the clarity in the concepts in one's mind inherited by the entire web of thought and action we build on it. And hazy, vague, and imprecise action is incapable of solving hyper-specific problems present from the dawn of time until the end of history.

And this is why although conceptual analysis is mainly a philosophical tool, it is an indispensable tool for all disciplines. For instance, I am currently a fourth year student taking the Bachelor of Secondary Education, major in Social Studies program at Holy Name University. We are working on a thesis entitled "Historical Thinking Skills and Fake News Susceptibility of Learners." The fields in which this study could mainly be classified are educational research and social research. Even so, I argue that to be able to empirically test whether our independent and dependent variables have a significant inverse correlation, we first need to have a clear grasp of each concept. The problem is precisely the absence of a clear definition of such variables in the literature. Therefore, we had to import the philosophical tool of conceptual analysis in order to gain clarity of each terminus of the relation that we are set out to investigate. 

In fact, conceptual clarity about the variables is necessary way way earlier, that is, at the stage of the formation of a hypothesis. This is because hypotheses are propositions which could turn out to either be true or false. As such, they, as said above, inherit the clarity or ambiguity of the concepts that compose them. And having a vague hypothesis is a scary feature for a study to have. One of my nightmares (Well, not really).

Having identified one benefit of writing in general, let us now turn to one benefit of writing for the public, and not just for oneself like some diary.

#2: It invites feedback.

We hate being judged, at least when the judgement is (1) directed at someone we care about especially ourselves, and is (2) negative.

But growth is possible if and only if we are willing to accept and to process others' criticism of our work. And growth, it seems, is self-evidently valuable given the horrors of stagnation (If this is not self-evident to you, I hope to convince you of how terrible stagnation is in a future post).

The psychologist Jordan Peterson cites Carl Jung to have said that "the fool is the precursor to the savior." There are only so many things that we can automatically perform with mastery. To be an expert at anything, one must be willing to undergo the stage of being a beginner. And being a beginner is not fun. Some of those who have already mastered the skill you are training for are malevolent enough to mock you, and will perhaps call you a fool. But, as the Buddhists remind us, "life is suffering." Just bear with it. Voluntarily bearing suffering is the only alternative to the horrors of stagnation. 

Peter Kreeft, in his witty book entitled Socrates Meets Kant, cites the following criticism of Plato by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. There, Kant writes:

The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. It was thus that Plato left the world of the senses, as setting too narrow limits to the understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of the pure understanding. He did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance, meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support on which he could take a stand. (A5 B9)

The senses provide feedback to our spontaneously wandering thought. Reality as perceived through the senses either falsifies or verifies the predictions produced by the mind. Without such contact with reality, even when the mind multiplies his work, such effort is all useless at least for Kant. This is because in such case, there is no way for us to know when to change our thinking to map it better on to reality.

There is a little complication when the feedback comes not just from impersonal reality, but from, wait for it, people. This is because although people sometimes tell the truth, they sometimes do not. They sometimes lie, or they are sometimes just honestly mistaken. This is why feedback from people must always be taken with a grain of salt (The contrast is only in terms of frequency. Illusion can sometimes come from senses, but people lie or are mistaken almost all the time).

Still, the point stands. Writing invites feedback, which one could in turn use to grow. Perhaps, just perhaps, such maturity equips us to be, following Peterson's Jung, a savior, whatever that means.

Having established a second benefit of writing, let us turn to a final one.

#3: It creates accountability. 

Since grade school, we have been told that whatever we put online will stay there forever. Even hitting "delete" buttons only, they say, hide to some people that which we intend to delete and does not actually eradicate it. I am therefore conscious that the ideas and opinions that I put here will be immortalized. 

How does the awareness of the inerasability (does such word exist?) of the content I put here foster accountability? In at least two ways.

First, I think, although this might change, that I will pursue the life of an academic. It will certainly be bad to my career if I will lie or commit mistakes all over. 

Some say that "walay aso makumkom" (No smoke could be trapped within our hands). Popular wisdom only becomes popular when there is some element of truth rings true for shared truth-oriented human nature. Consequently, this moves me to practice the habit of not only of accuracy, precision, or rigor, but also also of integrity. 

Second, former Dean and currently professor at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary, Fr. Jose Conrado "Dongdong" Estafia, Ph.D., once told us in class that had he been gay, he would have pursued doctorates abroad on nailpolishing. His point was that we must not waste our potentials.

"You have a lot of potential" is a compliment when you are young. But the older you grow, hearing it becomes more and more frightening. This is because, as Thomists are keen to note, act and potency are mutually exclusive. Potency is the principle of limitation to act, as the Fr. W. Norris Clarke, S.J., has said. In other words, the more potential you have, the more limited your current level of existence still is. When you are young, you still have time to actualize your potentials. But when you become a "forty-year old infant," to borrow an expression from Peterson, you no longer have much time and opportunity to do that. And that is frightening. 

In other words, the second reason why writing a blog fosters accountability is by forcing me to read and read and read so I would have something to write about. Now, I already do read quite a lot. Still, I know that I do not read yet as much as I could. There are still too many gaps in my knowledge. Having a definite schedule in writing my blog, therefore, could move me to fill in those gaps—those limitations in my grasp of that which we all seek—the plenitude of being.

(I hope that writing blogs is not just a phase in my life. I'm afraid I'm writing this just to distract myself from a recent break-up. Well, only time will tell.)