It’s awesome that you have Malaysian-Chinese roots as a half-Malaccan Portuguese. I initially thought you were Portuguese so I guess I was only half-half-right. It’s great that you’re culturally aware owing to the more conscientious upbringing given to you by adults in your family.
Filipino migrants often (but not always) don’t keep their kids culturally aware or even have them gain fluency in the mother tongue/s (yes, there are hundreds of Philippine languages) and often let them get completely absorbed into the host culture (which is a shame).
But I’m also a little surprised that you’re part Hokkien, because in the Philippines, there’s a sense of ethnic purity and very few mixed marriages among them, and the reason for that, that I’ve heard from Manila’s Chinese heritage museum in Intramuros, the Bahay Tsinoy Museum, was mainly economic. Hokkien Chinese in the Philippines usually arrived as merchants from Fujian and would not marry their children off to non-merchants (some class-based prejudice). Portuguese merchants might’ve married into Hokkien merchant families.
Having Chinese (or Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Persian, Indian) roots gives you an easy lane for a cultural reason to do Asian philosophy. It just makes sense to do so to deepen your own sense of identity. I’m a little envious because I only have about 8% Chinese in me, though there are still other interesting, salient reasons besides ethnolinguistic/historical ones to do philosophy.
As a Filipino, whenever I try to find Filipino philosophers in the 20th century, I could never find a truly original work from the Filipino perspective and/or language. I thought there was enough time for an original work by a Filipino (whether in Tagalog, Spanish, or English) to arise, that didn’t need to make use of or make reference to (except to contrast) foreign concepts, especially since the Dominicans and the Jesuits introduced Catholic thought through Catholic universities and the Americans through Ricardo Pascual, a Filipino student of Rudolf Carnap.
Three Filipino philosophers that I actually liked were former President Jose P. Laurel, Fr. Roque Ferriols, and Fr. Leonardo Mercado. But they were never as interesting as the East Asian philosophers that I’ve heard about, because those philosophers fleshed out indigenous ideas using indigenous methods. Filipino philosophers often borrowed or Filipinized foreign ideas. And only Mercado (diwa, which is like essence or relationality but isn’t) and Florentino Hornedo (bayanihan, which is like cooperation, but contextually narrower) made use of indigenous concepts as foundation to their work.
It’s also a shame that, as a Filipino and an Asian, if I’m a grad student in philosophy (which I’ll probably try doing eventually, if writing for a living doesn’t work out), it’s a career block to start out as a specialist in philosophy that matters the most to me. Seems to me it has a lot to do with a kind of linguistic injustice with English as lingua franca in philosophy broadly.
I think that it is both true that (1) philosophy is always from somewhere and (2) you can do whatever philosophy you want (I strongly resist the idea I hear in some POC that white people should not write about traditions originating outside of Europe or European settlers, very very strongly). So, we don't in a sense *need* a connection to a tradition to really identify with it and to love it, though a connection can give us a sense of urgency. My connections to Chinese culture and language are very tenuous. I only speak a little Mandarin and I learned that since 2020 (classic lockdown project that I kept up)--I don't have any special epistemic access to this literature. But still, I found it fascinating. The idea of a philosophy in one's language is so important. I was in Chile this summer and spoke to some grad students there, one of whom was Brazilian and lamented the fact there was not much (there is some!) Portuguese language philosophy, and that among the most prominent philosophers who spoke Portuguese (Spinoza e.g.,) they did not write in the language. I know that the Norwegians really value Naess because he is so internationally recognized for his deep ecology but he is also a Norwegian national treasure. Ultimately, it's interesting to see how people across culture draw pride from having philosophy from their country. There are smart young and up and coming Filippinx philosophers (I met some in Seoul this spring, e.g., Hazel Biana, who has these reflections on the discipline and the question of philosophy in the Philippines, you likely know her already -- https://philpapers.org/rec/BIAQDA-2
I totally agree with you on both points. One can take pride in philosophy from one’s own country (like with Spinoza for the Portuguese though he wrote in Latin or like with Naess). But one shouldn’t be limited by place or language or ethnicity or upbringing in doing philosophy (white or not, Western or not). I can do it because it’s interesting and worth doing, not only because I have any special epistemic access owing to my cultural upbringing, and still respect the foreign philosophical traditions even if I disagree with them (like the moral realists like Plato or the utilitarians like Bentham or the nihilists like Cioran) and their cultural origins.
I really like moral psychology, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of social sciences, and political philosophy. So if I ever end up doing philosophy, I’d be doing at least one of those and I’d be also doing the indigenous or indigenized version. I’ve actually seen, but not spoken to, Hazel Biana before in a local conference. Her paper that you shared, coauthored with JJ Joaquin, is my favorite recent read in Filipino philosophy. I’m just waiting for either one of them to publish a book specifically on the subject.
When I saw her in Seoul, she gave an excellent paper about reincarnation in Korean TV dramas (k-dramas). It was such an interesting and fun paper, blending philosophy of religion and a pop culture phenomenon and it got me thinking (following Justin Jennings's book on globalizations) that globalization, if it ever was, is certainly not now a phenomenon of west-rest, but different engagements of people from different cultural traditions across the globe with other cultural phenomena. The example Jennings gives is Nollywood (Nigerian films inspired by Bollywood dramas). I think philosophy increasingly is that way, which I think is great, and yes, I hope either of them will write that book!!
Though this decade seems to have a few young Filipinx (not just Filipino) philosophers from my generation already, like Catapang-Podolsky. Still clamoring for a uniquely indigenous philosophy.
Absolutely loved this post Helen! I’m a mix of Eastern European (Russian) and Chinese ancestry and I’ve been blessed with having Chinese as one of my native languages (alongside English and a bit of Russian). Reading philosophy across different languages and epistemic foundations is truly a blessing, and I think you’d really like Byung-Chul Han’s book: Absence. It summarized the key differences between the Western and the Eastern philosophical traditions. :)
Oooh I saw you recommend it before and I should definitely read that. I'm trying to blend the insights of western and eastern traditions increasingly in my philosophical work. And you are blessed to have Chinese as one of your native languages. I have to work at it and--omg it does not come naturally to me, not at all!--but I am patiently working and this spring I'll do a classical Chinese seminar with my grad students where we hopefully will learn how to read it a little bit, and then further worlds of philosophy will open up for us.
It’s awesome that you have Malaysian-Chinese roots as a half-Malaccan Portuguese. I initially thought you were Portuguese so I guess I was only half-half-right. It’s great that you’re culturally aware owing to the more conscientious upbringing given to you by adults in your family.
Filipino migrants often (but not always) don’t keep their kids culturally aware or even have them gain fluency in the mother tongue/s (yes, there are hundreds of Philippine languages) and often let them get completely absorbed into the host culture (which is a shame).
But I’m also a little surprised that you’re part Hokkien, because in the Philippines, there’s a sense of ethnic purity and very few mixed marriages among them, and the reason for that, that I’ve heard from Manila’s Chinese heritage museum in Intramuros, the Bahay Tsinoy Museum, was mainly economic. Hokkien Chinese in the Philippines usually arrived as merchants from Fujian and would not marry their children off to non-merchants (some class-based prejudice). Portuguese merchants might’ve married into Hokkien merchant families.
Having Chinese (or Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Persian, Indian) roots gives you an easy lane for a cultural reason to do Asian philosophy. It just makes sense to do so to deepen your own sense of identity. I’m a little envious because I only have about 8% Chinese in me, though there are still other interesting, salient reasons besides ethnolinguistic/historical ones to do philosophy.
As a Filipino, whenever I try to find Filipino philosophers in the 20th century, I could never find a truly original work from the Filipino perspective and/or language. I thought there was enough time for an original work by a Filipino (whether in Tagalog, Spanish, or English) to arise, that didn’t need to make use of or make reference to (except to contrast) foreign concepts, especially since the Dominicans and the Jesuits introduced Catholic thought through Catholic universities and the Americans through Ricardo Pascual, a Filipino student of Rudolf Carnap.
Three Filipino philosophers that I actually liked were former President Jose P. Laurel, Fr. Roque Ferriols, and Fr. Leonardo Mercado. But they were never as interesting as the East Asian philosophers that I’ve heard about, because those philosophers fleshed out indigenous ideas using indigenous methods. Filipino philosophers often borrowed or Filipinized foreign ideas. And only Mercado (diwa, which is like essence or relationality but isn’t) and Florentino Hornedo (bayanihan, which is like cooperation, but contextually narrower) made use of indigenous concepts as foundation to their work.
It’s also a shame that, as a Filipino and an Asian, if I’m a grad student in philosophy (which I’ll probably try doing eventually, if writing for a living doesn’t work out), it’s a career block to start out as a specialist in philosophy that matters the most to me. Seems to me it has a lot to do with a kind of linguistic injustice with English as lingua franca in philosophy broadly.
I think that it is both true that (1) philosophy is always from somewhere and (2) you can do whatever philosophy you want (I strongly resist the idea I hear in some POC that white people should not write about traditions originating outside of Europe or European settlers, very very strongly). So, we don't in a sense *need* a connection to a tradition to really identify with it and to love it, though a connection can give us a sense of urgency. My connections to Chinese culture and language are very tenuous. I only speak a little Mandarin and I learned that since 2020 (classic lockdown project that I kept up)--I don't have any special epistemic access to this literature. But still, I found it fascinating. The idea of a philosophy in one's language is so important. I was in Chile this summer and spoke to some grad students there, one of whom was Brazilian and lamented the fact there was not much (there is some!) Portuguese language philosophy, and that among the most prominent philosophers who spoke Portuguese (Spinoza e.g.,) they did not write in the language. I know that the Norwegians really value Naess because he is so internationally recognized for his deep ecology but he is also a Norwegian national treasure. Ultimately, it's interesting to see how people across culture draw pride from having philosophy from their country. There are smart young and up and coming Filippinx philosophers (I met some in Seoul this spring, e.g., Hazel Biana, who has these reflections on the discipline and the question of philosophy in the Philippines, you likely know her already -- https://philpapers.org/rec/BIAQDA-2
I totally agree with you on both points. One can take pride in philosophy from one’s own country (like with Spinoza for the Portuguese though he wrote in Latin or like with Naess). But one shouldn’t be limited by place or language or ethnicity or upbringing in doing philosophy (white or not, Western or not). I can do it because it’s interesting and worth doing, not only because I have any special epistemic access owing to my cultural upbringing, and still respect the foreign philosophical traditions even if I disagree with them (like the moral realists like Plato or the utilitarians like Bentham or the nihilists like Cioran) and their cultural origins.
I really like moral psychology, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of social sciences, and political philosophy. So if I ever end up doing philosophy, I’d be doing at least one of those and I’d be also doing the indigenous or indigenized version. I’ve actually seen, but not spoken to, Hazel Biana before in a local conference. Her paper that you shared, coauthored with JJ Joaquin, is my favorite recent read in Filipino philosophy. I’m just waiting for either one of them to publish a book specifically on the subject.
When I saw her in Seoul, she gave an excellent paper about reincarnation in Korean TV dramas (k-dramas). It was such an interesting and fun paper, blending philosophy of religion and a pop culture phenomenon and it got me thinking (following Justin Jennings's book on globalizations) that globalization, if it ever was, is certainly not now a phenomenon of west-rest, but different engagements of people from different cultural traditions across the globe with other cultural phenomena. The example Jennings gives is Nollywood (Nigerian films inspired by Bollywood dramas). I think philosophy increasingly is that way, which I think is great, and yes, I hope either of them will write that book!!
Though this decade seems to have a few young Filipinx (not just Filipino) philosophers from my generation already, like Catapang-Podolsky. Still clamoring for a uniquely indigenous philosophy.
Absolutely loved this post Helen! I’m a mix of Eastern European (Russian) and Chinese ancestry and I’ve been blessed with having Chinese as one of my native languages (alongside English and a bit of Russian). Reading philosophy across different languages and epistemic foundations is truly a blessing, and I think you’d really like Byung-Chul Han’s book: Absence. It summarized the key differences between the Western and the Eastern philosophical traditions. :)
Oooh I saw you recommend it before and I should definitely read that. I'm trying to blend the insights of western and eastern traditions increasingly in my philosophical work. And you are blessed to have Chinese as one of your native languages. I have to work at it and--omg it does not come naturally to me, not at all!--but I am patiently working and this spring I'll do a classical Chinese seminar with my grad students where we hopefully will learn how to read it a little bit, and then further worlds of philosophy will open up for us.