Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta.

Mesa, Manila
Department of Philosophy and the Humanities
Fundamentals of Research (PHIL 4013)

Annotated Bibliographies

Submitted by:
Ma. Clarida D. Pineda
AB PHILOSOPHY 3-1

Submitted to:
Professor Virgillio Rivas

February 05, 2015

A.Y. 2014-2015, 2nd Semester

Bibliography
Hoffding, Harald. The Philosophy of Evolution. Vol. II, in A History
of Modern Philosophy: From Close Renaissance to Our Own
Day, by Harald Hoffding, translated by B. E. Meyer. Dover
Publications Inc., 1920.
If we will look at Charles Darwin's method of inquiry, we will
find out that it is inductive, hypothetical. This means that there is
no certainty yet. There are three stages, wherein Darwin had
arrived to his theory. The first stage is observation. The
foundation of his theory was gathered during his observation of
the different environment when he had joined to the voyage of
the H.M.S Beagle. And this observation lead to his formulation of
his provisional hypothesis.
After his observation and study of Malthus' work he had
formulated his provisional hypothesis, that is "If a species try to
propagate as far as possible and there are hindrances which
check propagation, then, natural selection is necessary, in order
to find a connection between good and distinct species"
According to Thomas Malthus, in his writing on population,
"human population increases in geometrical ratio, whereas the
means of subsistence increases only in arithmetic ratio. If that is
the case, then it is evident that there is a struggle for existence.

However,

Darwin

did not acknowledge the idea

that

population increases in a geometrical ratio, because the rate of

increase in population is not always the same. But he believes
that in the view of sexual passion, population always outruns the
means of subsistence.
The third stage of his method of inquiry is the verification of
his provisional hypothesis. Darwin had proven that with four
empirical confirmation. The first is that, the artificial selection.
Artificial selection resembles natural selection. For example,
the breeders in England had produced for years new species,
because artificial selection. They marked small variation suitable
for their purpose in different individual, and then produced new
forms by taking care that only such individuals exhibited the said
variations should propagate the race.
The second fact that confirmed Darwin's hypothesis is the
paleontological record. There, exhibit a kinship

between the

extinct species and those now existing. This was proven true by
Darwin's principle of divergence.
The third fact is the geographical distribution. Because there
are hindrances to the habitat of an organism, there is a tendency
that the organism will be distributed to another place.
Lastly, the fourth fact is the embryology. Embryology
furnishes the sensational evidence to evolution. There is a
correspondence which is found to exist in the fetus stage between

animals which, when fully developed are quite different from

another.
Likewise, the stages of human embryo give a strong support
in the last step of evolution. The life process of man begins with a
single large cell, the ovum, then divides into two, then divides
again into four, eight, sixteen and so on. And finally arrange
themselves to form organs.
Husserl, Edmund. The Paris Lectures. Translated by Peter
Koestenbaum. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
Edmund Husserl's phenomenology desires to get back to the
things in themselves, a way by which objects are immediately
apprehended by consciousness. Husserl's goal is the complete
reform of the philosophical knowledge, which is very similar to
Descartes.
Husserl was greatly influenced by Descartes. In fact, he says
that Descartes was the father of phenomenology. Husserl argues
that the methodic doubt of Descartes aligns with the
phenomenological epoche.
Likewise, his way of establishing cartesianism is solipsistic.
There are two steps in order to make the way of philosophizing
subjective. First, destroy and rebuild all previous learning. Second,
find a secure starting point and rules of procedure.
It was stated earlier the method of meditation, now let's
consider the content of it. The ego begins with doubting

everything, and he find out that everything is dubitable and end

to a conclusion that he is only certain with his existence, that is
indubitable. This what Edmund Husserl called, the return of the
philosophizing ego. The ego, according to Husserl philosophizes
solipsistically. The ego tries to find out what makes him certain of
the objective world, and this is God. And this God exists. God
cannot be a deceiver, that is why he is certain of the objective
external world.
Husserl's point of departure from Descartes was the return of
the philosophizing ego. His starting point is its radicalism. This
radical conversion moves from nave objectivism to
transcendental subjectivism. This id the shift to the "ego cogito".
Husserl inquires, can we find evidence that is both
immediate and and apodictic, that is primitive, in the sense that it
precede all other evidences? Is it possible that the existence of
the world is the apodictically certain thing? and precedes all other
evidences?
According to Husserl, it is not, because it is given in actual
experience. Because we cannot say that world is real or mere
appearance, and even if we say that that it is real or only an
appearance, we cannot say that it is nothing, because people can
judge whether it is real or appearance. Thus, the ego is abstaining
his judgement of the world.
This process of abstention is what Husserl calls,
phenomenological epoche. Thus, the world exists because the

ego experience it, the meaning of it depends on the how it

appears to the ego.
The phenomenological epoche is a method wherein the ego
understand itself and the entire world exits for it. All of the spatiotemporal being exists for the ego, I. Because I experience it, I
perceive, remember, judge it, and et cetera.
Furthermore, the pure ego is transcendental. Through the
phenomenological epoche, the natural human ego is reduced to
the transcendental ego. This process is the phenomenological
reduction.
Likewise, the philosophic use of the transcendental ego is
prior to the world, because it precedes all objective reality and it
is the basis for all objective knowledge. The transcendental ego is
prior to the world because it is the only source and object capable
of judging.
MacDonald, Diane Louise Prosser. "Bound to the Back of the Tiger:
Body as Site of Power/Knowledge Practices." In Transgressive
Corporeality: The Body, Poststructuralism and the Theological
Imagination, by Diane Louise Prosser MacDonald, 55-85. New
York: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Michel Foucault was very much interested in the interrelation
of the invisible visible in the constitution of thinking and being. In
fact, he aligns this invisible with rationality. He regards this

rationality as the constraints of the body, as the hands wherein

we are tortured the most
Foucault's goal, according to the author is to disclose the
mystifications of the rationalities in their exclusionary
mechanisms of power. He seeks to discern the invisible dynamics
of power, and shifts from the focus of the subject to that which
speaks through the subject. His question is that, "what is
language?, "what is a sign?"
According to Foucault, it is not the self-conscious subject, but
language that speaks. Foucault tries to know what language is in
its being. The invisible for Foucault was not dependent to the
consciousness of the thinking subject. The question of being of
language for him is not a metaphysical quest, a search for a
unifying structure of consciousness or language, but an
investigation of the practices of the cultural epoch that give rise
to the various modes of rationality and subjectivity.
Thus, according to the author, it is evident that there is a
shift of focus from the intentionality of a transcendental
consciousness and from the fixed structures of the language to
the dynamic interplay of discursive practices.
In addition, the author argued that Foucault seeks to
interpret the dynamic of flesh, and he provides a more thorough
historical and detailed understanding of it than Maurice MerleauPonty. Futhermore, the author asserts that in pursuing the
question of being Foucault, allowed the question itself to shift, for

being to become an enigmatic aesthetic existence rather than a

fixed structure of existence and for a new ontology of relatedness
to be integral to this aesthetics.
Smith, Gregory Bruce. "The Critique: The Early Niezsche." In
Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Transition to Postmodernity, by
Gregory Bruce Smith, 73-83. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996.
During the time before Socrates, the early Greeks rely on
their instincts. But Socrates turned away from this. According to
him, reason and not instinct should govern us. In fact, for
Socrates, the reason is equated to happiness and virtue. On the
other hand, Nietzsche did not agree to this, he argued that reason
is still a sign of the degeneration of humanity. Why?
In his Twilight of the Idols, particularly in The Problem of
Socrates, Nietzsche affirms that with all the contradictory claims
of the great sages, including Socrates, the only thing that they
had agreed upon is that, life is no good. Likewise, Socrates
defined philosophy as preparing to die just like as to live is to die.
Notwithstanding, Nietzsche states that all the judgments of the
wisest man, again, including Socrates, is meaningless, because
life cannot be defined by the living and the dead, meaning, it is
transcendental from experience. Hence, all of those who judge life
are unwise.
Moreover, a good life for Socrates is an examined life. And
an examined life requires the use of reason. If that is the case,

happiness can be achieved through an examined life, since

reason was equated to happiness. Also, he argued that reason is
the only means of virtue. Thus, it shows the supremacy of reason,
for Socrates. In addition, Socrates used his dialectics to combat
those who based their morality on instinct. But for Nietzsche, its
goal is not to discover truth, but rather to gain mastery and
control.
Socrates argued that reason can cure the degeneration of
humanity which is for Nietzsche impossible to be achieved. In the
end, Nietzsche asserts that Socrates rationalistic faith had
collapsed

after

destroying

the

instinctive

basis

of

values.

However, the real Socratic legacy is neither his skepticism nor his
pessimism, but rather his optimism and faith that reason can
correct as well as perfect the human existence.
For Nietzsche, Socrates destroyed the basis of tragic, noble
culture through his optimistic faith in reason. He is much like an
Apollonian rather a Dionysian. For Socrates, values are in the
world of forms. This implies that for Socrates, the world of forms is
more important that the world of senses. Nietzsche, however,
states that it is not acceptable that values are in the world of
forms because if it is, it would fall into an illusion.
Furthermore, Apollonian and Dionysian are both essential for
the development of art. But though they are opposing forces,
neither of the two can be vital without the other. Apollo is the

Greek God of light and prophecy while on the other hand,

Dionysus is the God of wine, music and festivity.
Hoffding, Harald. The Philosophy of Evolution. Vol. II, in A History
of Modern Philosophy: From Close Renaissance to Our Own
Day, by Harald Hoffding, translated by B. E. Meyer. Dover
Publications Inc., 1920.
If we will look at Charles Darwin's method of inquiry, we will
find out that it is inductive, hypothetical. This means that there is
no certainty yet. There are three stages, wherein Darwin had
arrived to his theory. The first stage is observation. The
foundation of his theory was gathered during his observation of
the different environment when he had joined to the voyage of
the H.M.S Beagle. And this observation lead to his formulation of
his provisional hypothesis.
After his observation and study of Malthus' work he had
formulated his provisional hypothesis, that is "If a species try to
propagate as far as possible and there are hindrances which
check propagation, then, natural selection is necessary, in order
to find a connection between good and distinct species"
According to Thomas Malthus, in his writing on population,
"human population increases in geometrical ratio, whereas the
means of subsistence increases only in arithmetic ratio. If that is
the case, then it is evident that there is a struggle for existence.

However, Darwin did not acknowledge the idea that

population increases in a geometrical ratio, because the rate of
increase in population is not always the same. But he believes
that in the view of sexual passion, population always outruns the
means of subsistence.
The third stage of his method of inquiry is the verification of
his provisional hypothesis. Darwin had proven that with four
empirical confirmation. The first is that, the artificial selection.
Artificial selection resembles natural selection. For example, the
breeders in England had produced for years new species, because
artificial selection. They marked small variation suitable for their
purpose in different individual, and then produced new forms by
taking care that only such individuals exhibited the said variations
should propagate the race.
The second fact that confirmed Darwin's hypothesis is the
paleontological record. There, exhibit a kinship between the
extinct species and those now existing. This was proven true by
Darwin's principle of divergence.
The third fact is the geographical distribution. Because there
are hindrances to the habitat of an organism, there is a tendency
that the organism will be distributed to another place.
Lastly, the fourth fact is the embryology. Embryology
furnishes the sensational evidence to evolution. There is a
correspondence which is found to exist in the fetus stage between

animals which, when fully developed are quite different from

another.
Likewise, the stages of human embryo give a strong support
in the last step of evolution. The life process of man begins with a
single large cell, the ovum, then divides into two, then divides
again into four, eight, sixteen and so on. And finally arrange,
themselves to form organs.
Smith, Gregory Bruce. "The Critique: The Early Niezsche." In
Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Transition to Postmodernity, by
Gregory Bruce Smith, 73-83. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996.
During the time before Socrates, the early Greeks rely on their
instincts. But Socrates turned away from this. According to him,
reason and not instinct should govern us. In fact, for Socrates, the
reason is equated to happiness and virtue. On the other hand,
Nietzsche did not agree to this, he argued that reason is still a
sign of the degeneration of humanity. Why?
In his Twilight of the Idols, particularly in The Problem of
Socrates, Nietzsche affirms that with all the contradictory claims
of the great sages, including Socrates, the only thing that they
had agreed upon is that, life is no good. Likewise, Socrates
defined philosophy as preparing to die just like as to live is to die.
Notwithstanding, Nietzsche states that all the judgments of the
wisest man, again, including Socrates, is meaningless, because
life cannot be defined by the living and the dead, meaning, it is

transcendental from experience. Hence, all of those who judge life

are unwise.
Moreover, a good life for Socrates is an examined life. And
an examined life requires the use of reason. If that is the case,
happiness can be achieved through an examined life, since
reason was equated to happiness. Also, he argued that reason is
the only means of virtue. Thus, it shows the supremacy of reason,
for Socrates. In addition, Socrates used his dialectics to combat
those who based their morality on instinct. But for Nietzsche, its
goal is not to discover truth, but rather to gain mastery and
control.
Socrates argued that reason can cure the degeneration of
humanity which is for Nietzsche impossible to be achieved. In the
end, Nietzsche asserts that Socrates rationalistic faith had
collapsed after destroying the instinctive basis of values.
However, the real Socratic legacy is neither his skepticism nor his
pessimism, but rather his optimism and faith that reason can
correct as well as perfect the human existence.
For Nietzsche, Socrates destroyed the basis of tragic, noble
culture through his optimistic faith in reason. He is much like an
Apollonian rather a Dionysian. For Socrates, values are in the
world of forms. This implies that for Socrates, the world of forms is
more important that the world of senses. Nietzsche, however,
states that it is not acceptable that values are in the world of
forms because if it is, it would fall into an illusion.

Furthermore, Apollonian and Dionysian are both essential for

the development of art. But though they are opposing forces,
neither of the two can be vital without the other. Apollo is the
Greek God of light and prophecy while on the other hand,
Dionysus is the God of wine, music and festivity.
Timbreza, Florentino T. "Concept of Causality." In Filipino
Philosophy Today, by Florentino T. Timbreza, 1-16. Mandaluyong:
National Bookstore, 2008.
In the introductory part of Dr. Timbreza's Filipino Philosophy
Today, he asserts that it is true that there is a Filipino Philosophy.
This statement was proven true because if Aristotle's argument
that all human beings desires to know, then there is a Filipino
Philosophy, seeing that Filipinos are also curious to the mystery of
human existence. Filipinos also wonder about the meaning of life.
And this curiosity is the beginning of the philosophical quest.
Furthermore, if it is true Philosophy starts with human
experience, as what the existentialists and phenomenologists
would say, then there is no doubt that there is a Filipino
Philosophy, inasmuch as Filipinos has their own experience too.
Likewise, if Philosophy can be found in culture, like what the
sociologists and anthropologists would say, surely, we can say
that there is a Filipino philosophy, considering that Filipino culture
was rich.

Lastly, if there is a Philosophy in thought and language, as

what the philosophers of language says, then there is a Filipino
philosophy, in the view of the fact that Filipinos has their own
language too.
Based on the statements above, it can be implied that there
is no room to doubt if there is really a Filipino philosophy.
However, in this chapter, Dr. Timbreza discusses the Filipino
concept of causality. According to Dr. Timbreza, the Filipino's
concept of of causality refers to their own personal expression of
their own experience of causation. And Filipinos have given their
expression to their experience of reality and it was laid down
through their common literature.
However, Filipino thought has not yet developed a system
definition. But instead they had employed it into metaphors and
allegories to explain a certain idea. Dr. Timbreza's example for
this is the Tagalog reason that (Kung ano ang puno ay siyang
bunga). Based on the statements presented, it can imply that the
a mango tree will never bear an apple. For the Filipinos, the
nature of the cause, determines the nature of the effect which is
the fruit. With that being said, we can say that Filipinos believed
that whatever the effect reflects on its cause.
Another example that Dr. Timbreza gave is the Tagalog
expression that (Ang masamang punla, kung tumubo man ay
kasama-sama). This implies that the nature of the cause agent
determines the nature of the effect. According to Dr. Timbreza,

This concept is somehow related to the teachings of the Galilean

that "If evil in itself expels evil, then, evil is divided against itself".
Furthermore, Dr. Timbreza believes that the Filipino view of
causality was both a priori and a posteriori. Is is an a priori
concept of causality because the cause proceeds to the effect.
This mode of reasoning is what we call deductive. Just like the
example in the statements above that "Whatever the tree is, so
is the fruit", which is an example of a deductive argument.
On the other hand, the Filipino's concept of causality is an a
posteriori, seeing that proceeding from the observations of the
effects, consequences or facts, whereby to each the causes. Let's
take this example of "Even if you can't see the fire, you can trace
it by the smoke". This mode of reasoning is an example of an
inductive argument. Inductive, inasmuch as what is true in the
effect is also true in the cause.