Philippine Cultural Values

This chapter focuses on Philippine cultural values.  Values refer to “the beliefs, behaviour and material objects that constitute a people’s way of life” (Maciones, 1997 cited in Saquilayan, et al).  There are kinds of values: (1) personal, (2) organizational, (3) cultural, and (4) spiritual values. 

1.   Personal values are reflections of our needs, desires, and what we care about most in life (Chernyak).  For example: family, money, work, friends

2.  Organizational values guide the organization’s philosophy and actions (Meier).  For example: work, punctuality, productivity, resilience, cooperation

3. Cultural values refer to “a collective conceptions of what is considered good, desirable, and proper –or bad, undesirable, and improper, in culture” (Schaefer, 2001 cited in Saquilayan, et al, 2009).  For example, close-family ties, hospitality, procrastination

4.   Spiritual values are fundamental values which have roots in our being human.  For example: love, faith in God, hope, non-violence

Cultural values are embedded in the culture of a certain group of people living in a society.  They represent the ideals of the people, which serve as a “great cohesive force for the identity of the group,” and serve as guidelines of their collective thoughts and actions.

Horacio de la Costa identified the following values: (1) self-reliance, (2) sharing with one’s fellowmen, (3) national unity, and (4) heroism.  Virgilio Enriquez (1992) also identified the following: (1) Kalayaan, (2) Katarungan, (3) Katotohanan, (4) Karangalan, and (5) Pakikipagkapwa.

There are many more values mentioned by sociologists and anthropologists, as follows: (1) Smooth Interpersonal Relationship [SIR], (2) Reciprocity [Utang na Loob], (3) Hiya [Self-esteem], (4) Bahala na, (5) Close family ties, and (6) respect for elders.

      Smooth Interpersonal Relationship – a mechanism or facility of getting along with others with others in order to avoid outward signs of conflict or avoidance of potential situations that may result to hiya. 
Reciprocity – is understood when there is a service received or something done, whether it is solicited or not, that demands a return.

Hiya – being sensitive to an offense or insult

Bahala na – wherein an individual submits to the belief by leaving matters to fate.

Close family ties – is described as an “extended family”

Respect for elders – is shown in the kissing of hands of elders.



East versus West

This section shows points of difference between Eastern (oriental) and Western (occidental) people.  The distinction between East and West refers to the Eastern and Western Hemispheres of the globe and all those people living therein.  Eastern people are those generally considered Asian including Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, etc.; Western people are those generally considered Europeans, white Americans as well. 

The danger, however, in giving a comparison of these people from the two hemispheres of the globe is that, in so doing, we might give a hasty generalization of what a Westerner is or an Oriental is.  For example, when we find out that a Chinese is family-oriented, a Filipino is family-oriented, and a Japanese is also family-oriented, we conclude that all Asians are family-oriented, or shall we say, all Asians have this sense of collective consciousness.  This kind of reasoning is fallacious –considered as a fallacy of hasty generalization.  It is hoped that in giving a comparison, we only give the essential traits of both peoples.

First, a Westerner is individualistic whereas an Oriental is collectivistic.  Western people give value of the individual rather than family.  What is important for them is individual success, privacy and competence.  Oriental people, on the other hand, give value of the family (collective) rather than the individual.  What matters for them is cooperation, collaboration, and bayanihan.

            Second, a Westerner thinks in a linear manner whereas an Oriental thinks of time in a cyclic manner. 

Third, a Westerner defines an object/thing in terms of species et differentia whereas an Oriental is good in naming relationship.

_____________ 

References:

1.  Victorio Saquilayan, Felisa Aguirre, Miramar Garcia, et al.  (2009) Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc.

2.  Chernyak, Paul. https://www.wikihow.com/Define-Your-Personal-Values downloaded on Aug 31, 2018

3.  J.D. Meier. http://sourcesofinsight.com/organizational-values/ downloaded on Aug 31, 2018
4.  Emerita Quito, 1991, Merging Philosophy of East and West, Manila: De La Salle University Press

Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives

In the preceding chapter, The Philosophical Perspective, we tried to understand the self in philosophical way, starting from the Ancient Greek philosophers to Contemporary philosophers.  The next chapter on Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives, we will be doing a kind of “archaeological digging” of the influences of the individual self.  In philosophy, we are taught to ask questions, further our questioning, and make questioning a habit, or as Rene Descartes would suggest, “doubt everything –systematically everything” until such time that we will arrive at something which is no longer dubitable.  In sociology and anthropology, we will “dig” –most likely similar to the idea of “excavation” done in archaeology, the different layers of influence of the self.  In particular, we look into the influences of other people in socialization process and the influences of social structures, institutions, and culture in the society to the SELF.  The topics, therefore, covered in this chapter are as follows:

A.     Sociology

1.  Theories of socialization
2.  Social Stratification
      a.  Social class
      b.  Social status
      c.  Role
      d.  Gender

3.  The basic institutions: family, school, government, religion, and economy

B.     Anthropology

1.  Self, embedded in culture

2.  Philippine cultural values

3.  West vs. East

Class Activity: Clarification of Values [click].  This activity is designed to help students clarify their personal values against their cultural values.  Cultural values are given; personal values are earned.  In the language of Socrates, they're caught, not taught. 


          After the “digging,” we hope to understand how the self is shaped by external factors and influences.  This consideration is somehow hanged on the nurture-nature problem – Is the self nurtured or natural?, or What matters most: genes or environment?  If we take into consideration the influence of the environment, we believe that the self is nurtured.  But, we don’t also disregard the fact that each human being is determined by his/her genes, which we will not discuss in this chapter.

     To begin, let’s define sociology.  Sociology is the systematic study of human society (Macionis, 2012).  Though the approach of Sociology is scientific but, at the heart of it, lies a point of view known as “sociological perspective.”  Sociological perspective is characterized by “seeing the general in the particular” (Berger, 1963 cited in Macionis).  Using this kind of perspective is like “seeing strange in the familiar” (Macionis, 2012).  In everyday life, what we usually do, think, or encounter are the things familiar to us.  For example, when we buy goods in a mall, what is usual or familiar is that the items we buy are placed inside a plastic bag.  What is strange in this familiar activity is that this plastic bag used in packaging the items adds up to the volumes of non-degradable wastes in our localities or in major cities.  These wastes materials cause headaches to our local officials on how to dispose or manage them for recycling.  Using this perspective, then, will help us see a “bigger picture” or help us formulate a “general view” of a certain issue or matter at hand.

Sociology is divided into two: micro-sociology and macro-sociology.  Micro-sociology deals with the details of particular interactions as they occur in everyday life (Saquilayan, et al, 2009).  The topics mentioned above such as socialization, role, status, gender, and social class are concepts dealt in micro-sociology.  Macro-sociology, on the other hand, concerns with the larger patterns of relations among major social sectors (Saquilayan, et al, 2009).  The topics such as family, religion, government, school, and economy are concepts dealt in macro-sociology.  Although with limited time for discussion, we’ll try to unpack their meaning, and how these social processes and structures enable us to understand the self better in the context of social life.  Group life (social life) is the groundwork or the “laboratory” of sociologists.  Without the common life of a group of people, sociology will not exist as an independent discipline.  We know how important group life is to each and every individual.  Individual self is shaped by the shared life of the group.  It is in this context that we will discuss the following concepts: socialization, role, status, gender, and social class.  In discussing these concepts, we need to put in mind how each concept shapes the self.

 a.  Socialization – a process by which an individual acquires attitudes, beliefs, and values of his or her culture.  It is a life-long process, which begins from infancy, to childhood, to adolescence, adulthood and finally old age (Saquilayan, et al, 2009).  It is undeniably true that in each stage of life, one may socialize with different persons who may have different values, beliefs and attitudes.  It would follow that he may have acquired various values, beliefs and attitudes in each stage of life.  Socialization is when one develops his self-concept and personality.

Theories of Socialization:

1.      “Looking Glass Self” Theory, developed by Charles Horton Cooley

2.      The Social Self Theory, developed by George Herbert Mead

3.      The Dramaturgical Approach, developed by Erving Goffman

4.      The Psychoanalytic Viewpoint, developed by Sigmund Freud

5.      Psychosocial Stages of Development, developed by Erik Erickson

6.      Stages of Cognitive Development, developed by Jean Piaget

For ppt file, click.

Agents of Socialization:

1. Family; 2) School; 3) Peers; 4) Mass media; 5) Religion; 6) Workplace; and 7) State

b.  Social stratification refers to human differences existing among members of the society on the basis of age, sex or gender, intelligence and physical characteristics, such as body-build and appearance, race or ethnic group, birth or family name, education and power and prestige (San Juan & Centeno, 2011).

Components of Social Stratification:

1.  Social class refers to the stratum or category of persons who have similar socio-economic privileges in the society (i.e. upper, middle, and lower classes)

2.  Social status refers to the social standing of a person or group within a social class, or in the entire social stratification system.  Certain rights, social expectations, duties and privileges are attached to the social position.  Social status can either be: (1) ascribed status – that which is assigned to the individual from birth and involves little personal choice like age and sex; and (2) achieved status – acquired by choice or through merit and individual effort and is made possible through special abilities or talents, performance or opportunity (San Juan & Centeno, 2011).

3.  Role refers to the expected or actual behaviour patterns that correspond with status.  Rights, privileges, obligations, responsibilities are attached to the social role

4. Gender refers to the differentiation that sex makes in a culture and to the traits that are linked by culture to each sex, whereas sex refers to the biological make-up of an individual (Saquilayan, et al, 2009).

NOTE:  Social stratification results in social inequalities and opportunities in the acquisition and allocation of material and abstract rewards in the society.  The gap between the rich and the poor is a good example of social inequality in terms of wealth and income.  The rich have better opportunity to secure high-paying jobs or opportunity for new business ventures.

c.  The Basic Institutions:  In every society, the five basic institutions co-exist, namely: family, government, economy, church and school.  The term, institution, is defined by social scientists as “a pattern of norms centered on a major social goal, value, or need.”

1.  Family – the basic unit of every society.  It is the basic social group united by blood (consanguinity) or marriage (affinity), generally live together and participate in economic cooperation, and provides security, socialization, companionship and in the reproduction and preservation of the human race.  Marriage is an important element of the family.  Marriage (Howard & Hattis, 1992) is a “socially sanctioned sexual and economic union between men and women.” 
      
     Filipinos are known to be family-oriented.  A Filipino family consists of the grandparents, parents, and children.  This familial structure is also considered extended.  "Collective responsibility" is a value associated with family-orientedness.  It is described "as a responsibility of each member in the family to take responsibility to other members of the family.  For example, if the elder brother finished college and landed a good job, he would, then, took responsibility to send his younger siblings to school.  In the family, support system (like financial, emotional, political support) is strong.

    In contrast, Western family is known for giving more space on the right to privacy, self-determination, and giving more rights and privileges to each member of the family.  This structure of the family is considered as PERSONALISTIC, which gives more value on the individual person in the family.

     Forms of Marriage:

• Monogamy – the marriage of one male and one female
• Polygamy – the marriage between one person of one sex and a minimum of two persons of the other sex.  There are two forms of polygamy: (1) polyandry – marriage of one woman to two or more men, and (2) polygyny – marriage of one man to two or more women

2.  Political institution – a basic social institution that determines when, how and who should gain power

           Types of Government:

·     Monarchy – governed by one person like the Monarch or King

·    Aristocracy – governed by two or more persons like the members of the Aristocrat families or the bourgeoisie

·     Democracy – governed by all citizens in the society; leaders are elected

     There are two major types of government prevalent in 19th to 21st century, as follows: Dictatorial/ Totalitarian and Democratic.  Dictatorial/ Totalitarian government is closely identified with communism. Dictatorial government is usually governed by ambitious military leaders.  Totalitarian -a government which usurps all powers, roles, and functions of other institutions.  Some negative effects of totalitarian government: suppression and abuses of human rights.  Democratic government, on the other hand, is closely associated with capitalism.  A leader in a democratic government is elected by the people.  Some positive effects of democracy: self-determination and respect for human rights.

3. Economic institution – social structure that is related to production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services

           Systems of Economy:

·  Capitalism – a system based on private ownership of the means of production and on competition for more profits; whereas, communism is a system where there are rich, no poor in the society.  This is also known as a "propertyless society."  No private individuals should own property.  It is only the state, which shall manage the property of the state.

·   Socialism – a system in which productive forces like labor, capital and land are owned and managed by the state.

4.  Religion – a sacred engagement or relationship with what is believed to be a spiritual reality.  According to Charles Taliaferro, there are five major religions in the world: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  The first two, Hinduism and Buddhism, originated in India.  Siddhartha Gautama is known as the founder of Buddhism.  The last three are known as Abrahamic religions because Abraham is considered as the Father of Faith of each religion.  

5.  Education – a carefully designed and controlled process of learning in order for members of society to accumulate knowledge and information that may ensure the transformation or change in behaviour, making people more productive and efficient member of society.

There are significant changes in Philippine education: (1) professionalization of teachers in 1994; (2) creation of Department of Education, Commission on Higher Education, and Technical Educational and Skills Development Authority, and (3) Senior High School Program

Anthropology, in its literal sense (from two Greek words, anthropos + logos) is defined as the study of human beings.  In technical sense, it is the science of Man and his works, which covers man’s physical, social, economic, cultural background and behaviour of human beings in a particular society.

            Branches of anthropology:

1.  Physical anthropology deals with the origin and evolutionary process of man, i.e. genetic make-up and changes of the human aspects of life

2. Cultural anthropology deals with the study of man’s behaviour and how he carries out and adapts to the various activities of everyday life.

One important element of human society is culture.  Culture is part and parcel of human life.  In fact, the SELF is embedded in one’s culture.  Edward Taylor, an English anthropologist, defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”  Culture is both material and immaterial.  Material culture refers to objects, tools, things, artifacts, economic goods, property which have become part or product of any behaviour system of man’s past, present, or future.  Immaterial culture, on the other hand, is composed of the behaviour, thoughts, beliefs, feelings as well as the intellectual, artistic, and social ideals and values that members of the society profess (Zulueta, 2006). 

Based on the idea of culture, we will discuss the following topics:

      1.  Self as embedded in culture
     (Read Related Articles: (1) Self and Culture; (2)  Society and Culture)

2.  Philippine Cultural Values  (Linked article: Philippine Cultural Values)    
3.  West vs. East 
     

________________

References:

Macionis, J. J. (2012). Sociology. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Victorio Y. Saquilayan, Felisa U. Aguirre, Miramar I. Garcia, Romeo R. Javines, Maria Rosario E.
Monce, Berlyn F. Pa-at, Evalyne A. Rodriguez. Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology.
Valenzuela City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc., 2009

Wilfredo B. San Juan & Ma Luz J Centeno. Sociology, Culture and Family Planning: A Conceptual, Experiential and Interactive Approach. Pasig City: Unlad Publishing House. 2011

Francisco M. Zulueta, Anthropological and Sociological Concepts and Perspectives, Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, 2006.

Jun Todoroki Abesamis, M. F. (2014). Society and Culture: A Liberal Approach in Understanding Humanity. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc.

Self and Culture

In his article, The Self and the Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts, Harry Triandis shows the fact “the human self is totally emerged in one’s culture.”  Culture is a social reality, which is given and no one can refuse to imbibe it when once born.  When a child is brought into existence, he is already “thrown” into the culture of his origins. 

Man is a “being-in-the-world,” as Heidegger claims.  The world that one happens to dwell on is a network of meaning.  This meaningful world is somehow elegantly decorated with what is in there in one’s culture.  For Taylor, culture refers to the beliefs, practices, thoughts, worldviews of the group of people.  All of these characteristics of culture are like icing on the cake –that is, the world we are living in.  It goes without saying that man is not living in a vacuum.

In deeper analysis, culture is embedded in one’s self.  It somehow defines the nature and behavior of the self.  One’s culture influences his self –thoughts, feelings, behavior; the self, on the other hand, is also understood as a “blank slate” so that its capacity to absorb the meanings is fertile and sufficient. 

However, culture differs from one group of people to another.  Thus, it is undeniably true, human self differs from one culture to another.  Triandis mentions that a society having an individualistic culture hubs an individualistic self.  Likewise, a society having a collectivist culture hubs an individual with a collectivist paradigm.

    This is, I think, one of the breakthroughs made in Sociology and Anthropology, which we cannot neglect its impact on the way we understand the self.

Related article:

1) Society and Culture posted on May 10, 2017

KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM

In this write-up, I'd like to draw some points of difference between knowledge and wisdom.  What is meant by being knowledgeable?  What is meant by being wise?  Is a knowledgeable person wise?  Or, is a wise man knowledgeable?


To begin, let me give some examples of cases where a person claims he knows or has knowledge, as follows: (1) a scientist finds out that “there is water in Mars;” (2) a geologist finds out that “the core of the earth is extremely hot;” (3) a farmer knows the best of soil for planting rice; (4) a fisherman knows the best time of the day to catch fish; (5) a nursing mother knows the best time to give milk to her infant.  The first two examples are considered scientific knowledge.  These are forms of knowledge which help mankind understand the physical world and how to deal with it.  The last three examples, on the other hand, are considered “technical knowledge” necessary for one’s survival.  Take note: any form of knowledge is expressed in a form of a proposition, such as “There is water in Mars,” or “The core of the earth is extremely hot.”  Each of these propositions contains a truth-value –that is, whether a proposition is true or false.  Again, the proposition, “There is water in Mars,” can be true or false.”  Since a proposition can be true or false, it can also be contested or refuted.  But, we come to a very important question when we claim we know: “What are the criteria of knowledge?”  In other words, how do we know that what we claim is true?  To answer this question, let’s have Plato’s definition of knowledge.


Knowledge is defined by Plato --ancient Greek philosopher, as a “justified true belief.”  It’s a belief because it signifies a firm conviction or personal assent to a truth-claim.  For example, if one claims that there are other forms of life that exist on Mars and his claim is justified and really true, then he must have a firm conviction of it.  Otherwise, he might easily give up when other persons challenge or refute his claim.  Thus, belief implies a conversion of mind and heart to give assent to a propositional claim, which is really true and founded on sufficient rational grounds/justification.  Though it logically follows that if one is justified in his claim, then he sticks to it with firm conviction --even shed his blood for it, but of course, this is not always the case or true to all knowers.  There are some knowers who just simply give up what they know in that they are afraid to hold onto it, or fear for their lives if they hold it on.  Cowardice is what makes knowers shun to share what they know.  Courage is what makes them spread what they know.

Now, what about wisdom?  To understand more about wisdom, let me cite the idea of wisdom espoused by Socrates, ancient Greek philosopher, known today as "Socratic wisdom."  Socrates is known as the wisest person ever lived.  His wisdom lies in his claim that "he knows of only one thing with certainty --that is, he doesn't know."  He does not pretend he knows everything that there is to know.  However, he humbly accepts that he can't know everything.  Socratic wisdom, then, is characterized with humility.  It doesn't mean that one has to give up his desire to know or one has to give up knowledge and end up in skepticism.  Yet, to be wise like Socrates is to engage in dialogue with other seekers for truth.

So, what is the answer to the question, "What is the difference between the knowledgeable and wise person?"  A knowledgeable person is one who makes truth-claims about the world but he is not necessarily wise because he has the tendency to never admit mistakes.  A wise person is a knowledgeable one yet he has the attitude of humility to accept that he can commit mistakes and to admit the fact that he can't know everything.

Related articles: 
1)  What is Real Knowledge? [click] 
2)  Research-based Knowledge is Falsifiable [click]
3)  Scientific Knowledge is Falsifiable [click]

Legal Battle

When having a class in Sociology, I tried to open the minds of my students that Sociology is born as a distinct social science because of social changes tremendously impacting the lives of people.  These social changes were spawned by invention of technologies like compass, telescope, machines, etc.  The great social thinkers like Karl Marx have struggled to understand the changes that were happening in society during their times.  

The time of Karl Marx, for example, was characterized by changes spawned by industrial revolution.  Because of industrialization, the landscape of a city changed enormously so as the society in general –from agricultural to industrial or commercial district.  To recall, before the industrial revolution, much of Europe was agricultural –technically known as feudalistic society.  A certain agricultural land was ruled by a feudal lord; his substituents were the tenants.  Tenants tilled the land and paid tributes to the lord.  In return, the lord gave protection to the tenants in times of war against intruders.  During the Spanish colonial administration, Philippines was under the “encomienda system” –more or less akin to the feudalism in Europe.  Under this system, an “hacienda” was owned by a Spanish settler by virtue of a Royal Decree and all of its original inhabitants became tenants of the “haciendero.”  What was significant of encomienda system in the Philippines is that, perhaps, it was the first kind of land grabbing in the islands.  

Industrial age marked the end of feudalism.  Industries mushroomed in cities.  Cities were turned into industrial and/or commercial districts, which enticed people to look for better opportunities like jobs rather than work in haciendas.  Cities, then, shone like a jewel to the eyes of workers, and investors alike.  On the part of the workers, cities are places where they could find work, earn a living and support their families.  On the part of the investors, cities are good avenues for them to invest and gain more profit.  Eventually, cities became centers of material wealth and pride of those people living in the city.  However, there were negative faces of industrial cities, which puzzled social thinkers, sociologists in particular.  Poverty is one of the evils of industrialization.  Karl Marx theorized that poverty was caused by social injustice.  Social institutions, economic and government institutions in particular, were unjust which ensued to a big gap existing between the capitalists and workers.  The workers who were working in unfavourable conditions were given less share of the total income of the company; the owners enjoyed the bigger share.  Marx noted that these practices made the rich richer and the poor poorer.  And, it’s blatantly unjust!

Social injustice makes thinkers find ways to effect change in the existing status quo of the society.  If a class of people is abused or exploited by the other class, or say, “by the influential or the rich,” then it’s unjust.  If these unjust practices and structures are prevalent, then there is a need to change its current status quo to a more just one.  For Marx, bloody revolution is a favourable means to change bourgeois society.  Many dictators in different parts of the world adapted Marxism and took bloody revolution to effect drastic changes in their particular nations.  Many of them, if not all, were successful in taking over the government yet, in other side of coin, it was a failure because human abuses got worst.  Marxism as an ideology has helped shape modern societies with negative and positive features, which become lessons in the continuing formation or transformation of societies today.  One positive effect, maybe, of Marxism as witnessed in some communist European countries is that the collapse of communism proves that democracy is better than communism.  Most communist countries are dictatorial or authoritarian and totalitarian.  Citizens shall work for the good of the state.  The state, in return, is duty-bound to give what is good for its citizens.  Of course, this is what is ideal in communism.  It turns out, however, that only dictators enjoy the wealth of their patrimony but their citizens suffer suppression from them.  

In modern times, democracy is at its best as a form of government and a way of life.  History proves that democracy is best for all people to attain a certain sense of self-realization in life.  Democracy as a form of government promises equal opportunities for all people to be voted in public offices.  Democracy as a way life promises equal opportunities for each and every citizen to grow professionally or be happy in life.  However, democratic society does not promise all values necessary for one’s social life.  There are still a number of cases of injustices and human rights abuses in any democratic society.  For example, illegal activities like drug trade and use are still rampant in democratic countries like in the Philippines.  Government pursuing policies to end illegal drug trade and use may violate human rights in the process like again “allegedly” happening in the Philippines.  Many other more telling stories reveal how democracy as an ideology creates public spaces where social injustice still is happening.

Because of this, social transformation is sought for –a transformation of society into a better one.  If pressed what is meant by a “better society,” it’s a kind of society with less cases of social injustice and human rights abuses.  A better way to do this is through a “legal battle.”  It’s a battle without any use of arms as in bloody revolution or rebellion.  It’s a battle which takes place in the public arena, which at present, refers to the arena of legislation.  In the Philippine politics, it is in the arena of Congress and Senate.  To effect changes in society starts its promulgation in either house, House of Congress or House of Senate.  After its thorough deliberation among members of Houses, it will come out in a form of a bill.  Then, the executive will, or will not, sign it into law of the land.  Once signed by the executive, it’s ready for implementation.  The scope and extent of this law will take gradual changes in the lives of the people under the jurisdiction of the state.

A legal battle takes a long process.  But, it’s the only way through which social transformation is rationalized and not done in a drastic way.

Saving Philosophy!

Contemporary philosophers with post-modernist orientation reject outright the legacy of the philosophical tradition in the West.  Post-modernism is usually identified with philosophers in 19th century onwards and often characterized with non-dualistic perspective.  Friedrich Nietzsche is known as the prophet of post-modernism with his nihilist claim, “God is dead.”  (Nihilism –from the Latin word meaning “nothing.”)  In Christian tradition, God is said to be the “alpha and omega” (beginning and end), and foundation of everything that exists.  God is also the source of man’s knowledge and morals.  But with Nietzsche’s pronouncement that God is dead, man is left with nothing –no foundation of his being and the criterion of his knowledge and morals.  To overcome the death of God, he should become an “ubermensch” (superman) and shall be able to “fly without wings,” like the one we see in the series of Superman movies.  This Nietzschean philosophy is entirely “nihilist” –in the sense that it is non-foundationalist.  It rejects altogether the idea of all foundations of existence, knowledge, meaning of life, morals, among others.

Philosophy has been one of the celebrated sciences –if we mean by science in its literal sense, that is, a body of knowledge.  In the tradition of the ancient Greeks, philosophy –identified then with metaphysics, became the highest of all sciences (again, in its literal sense) and shall perch in the pedestal because philosophizing is a god-like activity.  Gods and goddesses dwell in Mount Olympus –the holy mountain in ancient Greek civilization.  Thus, they are apart from the habitation of the mortals.  While the mortals struggle against the vicissitudes of life, they stand on top of the mountain as spectators watching and intervening at times the affairs of the mortals.  To stand on top of the mountain like a god is a privilege.  It is on top of the mountain where one can see everything below as one unified whole.  It is on top where one can tell stories about the affairs of the mortals.  A mortal obsessed in a day-to-day concern has no place and time to stop, look, write and tell his own stories, his fellow mortal’s stories as well.  To scribble stories can only be done when a mortal is not directly engaged in the daily affairs of all other mortals.  That is exactly what is meant by philosophy as a “god-like activity.”  A philosopher is privileged to perch on top of the mountain like a god and sees everything below as a “unified whole,” and articulates his vision of the whole as a “theoria.”  Philosophizing, then, is simply having a “perspective” higher than the ordinary.  Since philosophizing is taking a higher perspective, it implies that a philosopher is (1) willing to break his ties from obsession of the day-to-day concerns, (2) willing to take the higher perspective, (3) willing to have the vision of the whole, (4) willing to articulate his vision of the whole, and (5) willing to defend his articulation of the vision of the whole.

Plato, however, made philosophy a search for something metaphysical to ground all realities.  Distrusting the physical world as a fleeting reality, he speculated of a world, which is the real, the unchanging and the eternal –the “World of Forms.”  At the outset, Plato divided two kinds of world: the world of senses and the world of forms.  The world of senses does not provide us the true knowledge but only opinion, since all perceptual experience of it is fleeting, keeps on changing –thus, perception is deceptive.  The world of forms, on the other hand, is the source of real knowledge since it is immutable and can only be accessed through reason.  Contemporary philosophers like Richard Rorty accuse Plato of introducing dualistic sort of philosophizing in the West.  And, all philosophies after Plato are caught up under the thrall of Plato.  Rorty also charged Platonism as foundationalist, aside from being dualistic.  One assumption of Platonism is that true knowledge must consist of a correspondence between language and reality, or the spoken word and the outside world.  For example, when I say, I know that the sun is hot is certainly true if and only if the sun is hot.  What I claim I know with certainty like “the sun is hot” is true if and only if it corresponds to the outside world. 

Richard Rorty rejects this sort of philosophy which is dualistic and foundationalist.  This sort of philosophy does not help for the improvement of humanity.  The betterment of human conditions does not rely on the search of what is true but on social hope.  Thus, there is a need to redirect one’s philosophical search for the “ideal form,” which will make the future of humanity better, instead of scrambling for something which doesn’t exist at all like the Platonic ideal forms.  It's futile to look for the ideal forms to ground for knowledge since in the first place there is no such thing as the World of Forms.  It is rather helpful to divert one's energy and attention to search for something that makes future humanity a better one.  Rorty wants to replace knowledge with social hope.  Rortian critic against Platonism is really and disturbing.  He dethrones philosophy from its place as the highest of all sciences.  Philosophy, therefore, shall be treated like one of the other disciplines.   And, he thinks he's right when he gives up teaching philosophy -a position where he becomes renowned worldwide, and holds position in teaching literature instead.

With this attack against philosophy, is there any way to save philosophy? 

In deeper analysis, what Rorty is ferociously attacking is not the whole philosophical tradition in the West.  He is particularly against Platonism.  Saving philosophy is possible if philosophy is still understood as a "god-like activity," not a metaphysical one like that of Plato.