Let us assume for a minute that the Filipino individuals exists as one homogenous body and the life of that body is reflected in its history. In this way, the instructor of that history reveals to us that the motivation behind why we should consider history is: to comprehend the present and get ready for the future, one must gain from an earlier time; and lately, we are recounted a “history from beneath”, “history of the incoherent” or “history from the perspective of the individuals”- a background marked by the body from the point of view of the body. This is the extent that subjectivity goes, similarly as our own greybeard Teodoro Agoncillo gladly announced, however one marvels if the subjectivity is on the individuals if at any time there is one, for this is only an assumption or is it on the greybeards of Manila, who since they are situated in theory focal point of the Philippines likewise felt that their verifiable awareness is the solid focus of any chronicled understanding.
The euphoric instructor of history at that point assumes the job of the umalohokan, an educator and not an instructor (nobody likes to educate anyore under this “training from beneath”), a minor mouthpiece within the sight of greybeards-that is, the “specialists” of the Philippine verifiable custom who guarantee as an issue of pride some supernatural shrewdness gained from broad looks into. Like Hegel, and of course like Hegel for a considerable lot of the alleged Filipino intellectual elite revere Hegel without getting him, these “specialists” of Philippine history consider themselves to be results of the recorded arrangement of the world procedure.
The issue anyway is whether such a body exist past the deliberation of our feeling of history, or is the Filipino individuals too like our greybeards-and add to that the Bangsamoro-are simply deceptive phantoms rising up out of the cadaver of the “awkward” or the stench “from underneath”? Our teachers can straightforwardly announce, and broadcast with a specific level of passionate disillusionment, that the Filipino individuals need chronicled cognizance. What is the distinction between the individuals at that point and the individuals presently as far as deciphering the past? Nothing! But we are to put at the raised area of the world soul their perspective, their inarticulation, and their fear for the very intellectual elite who are putting them at statures they themselves can’t accomplish in the event that they are to depend just on their frail plastic force.
Also, what of this “Filipino individuals”? This is the thing that I propose: that the individuals was conceived an offspring and got its final knockout in the Philippine Revolution of 1896, past which the individuals exist simply as a deliberation nothing more and nothing superior to the content inside any record. Really, the Filipino is a cutting edge idea in that it making the most of its turning out to be in craftsmanship and religion, in torment and distress, in wretchedness and festivity that is, in experience and in life-just to be covered in view of an overabundance of a feeling of history, the feeling of network, the commonplace sense, the feeling of starting point that is, the feeling of “from which I originated from”. From this time forward, it became post-present day: “there is nothing outside the content”.
The holy people of the Absolute Spirit, for that is the thing that our greybeards are, needed the adolescent to comprehend that they are a piece of an entire and part of a framework. History is knowing which part you ought to be in and what job you should play: understanding the present relies upon knowing the past. An honorable reason if the finish of life is insignificant episteme, despite the fact that it shows up since episteme itself is finishing life. Is this why we learn history? To know? Furthermore, if for sure we know, or award that we currently know everything to think about the past, what at that point? The virtuous greybeards may recommend: with the goal that we can have chronicled meetings, wherein we can wonder about our own superbness and wash in the greatness of having an overabundance of history: that we can escape the awful solid of the superabundance of significance in present day life: that we can set up tourist spots and different imprints landmarks for the dead by the step by step biting the dust: that we can babble on past wonders as we construe the very nonattendance of history in our middle in spite of an abundance of history in our cockroach-stricken tomes.
Maybe Nietzsche was directly all things considered: history in abundance has become a type of selfishness. The pride of the student of history, though a pride conceived of the inclination that one is lost in the network of such a lot of history. What is this overabundance at that point? This I think about evident: that history ought to be given skyline by the cognizance of experience and the awareness of a mind-blowing development, and anything past that skyline is unnecessary. There is no reason for recollecting everything considerably more to recommend that recollections include a world procedure – a world recorded framework. Notwithstanding, the adolescent was caused to feel that verifiable information is such and such a course, total the extent that importance goes, a framework restricted distinctly by the edges of a reading material and contained inside its front and back spread the instructor of history is an insignificant instrument for the creation of its sound. This is the history that you should learn. This is the history you should comprehend. This is the history you should place in your own memory whether your experience warrants it or not. All things considered, information is all inclusive and objective and an abundance of information is superior to little information. The will to a framework is without a doubt a wanton will.