Dr. Fredegusto David
August 1, 1937 – July 13, 2007
Sir David will be laid to rest at the Himlayang Pilipino tomorrow, July 21, 2007. Interment starts at 8am.
I just came from the UP Chapel and it is already past 11pm. The “programme," for his necrological service says the tribute would end at 10pm. Expectedly it was extended as this great man Sir David would extend his teachings beyond his death to so many lives he has touched.
“FG,” as his friends fondly call him is our demi-god professor emeritus in the Department of Psychology. He had a stroke last July 12 after his last class in the afternoon and slept in a coma. He passed away the following day. He is supposed to turn 70 this coming August 1. The age of 69 is too young for me for a great teacher to move on to the next life especially when I saw his 8 children, his youngest being as young as I am. They are too young to lose a dad, and his pretty young-looking wife was still grieving. Who wouldn’t? All the people who were there were shedding tears. All these people, including myself were his colleagues, friends, batchmates and students whom he always considered as his adopted grandchildren one way or another were touched greatly by this man.
I remember a kabarkada who was always in deep awe of Sir David shared to me sometime in our college years some bits of information about him:
- alumnus of Temple University where he had his PhD
- discovered a mathematical formula but a fellow university scholar who also discovered the same got ahead of him in informing the public about it
- an institution of UP Department of Psychology, former Department Chair
- all his 8 children went to Philippine Science
- all his 8 children passed the Intarmed Programme of U.P.
- that his competitor when he was a college student eventually became his wife
- has an I.Q. above 140
- has photographic memory (truly, he was able to call each one of us by our last names in our second class meeting without a seatplan but by plain memory- A ROBOTIC MEMORY).
Sir David was my teacher in my last year in college in Psychology 160 which covered Neuropsychology. I, who was always an active bibo kid was the first to be embarrassed by this demi-god in our first meeting. As we started discussing the family of primates under Human Evolution, he asked if it is right for a Chimpanzee which is the closest relative of humans to have sex with a Hominid (Humans). The other bibo kid Mr. Uriarte asked, “Sir, is there a need?” to which he replied, “Who knows?” I was seated at the back row and I saw most of the heads shaking but I said to myself, “Why not?” Hence, I raised my hand and said, “Sir, why not? If the human being wants to.” Then he asked me back, “Why? Would you do it if given the chance?” to which I replied, “No, I am not speaking for myself. I am just saying that if the human being wants to then why not?” Then he said, “Why do you say that it is alright for a human being to do it if you won’t do it yourself?!?” and everyone in class reacted with a big laugh.
God. I was, truly, embarrassed.
The following day he reiterated the same discussion that it is wrong for a human being to have sex with a chimpanzee as it is unethical; that it was never tried and there is no certainty that the species produced will survive. Then he stared at me and said, “Well, except one of you who wants to have sex with a chimp,” and everyone laughed out loud again (except my 4 kabarkada seated next to me whom I think were controlling their giggles as this would really offend me).
Wow.
He embarrassed me again and I turned red, really red.
I was debating with myself as I arrived home that same evening. I knew I had a point. I just couldn’t find the right words to explain it articulately then, at the age of 20. Now that I am 25, with 3 years spent most of the time reading in school I slowly found the right words: My opinion was actually influenced by the existensialism approach by my Philosophical Science professor earlier that day during our first class meeting with Sir David. Existensialism as defined by the Webster’s encyclopedic Dictionary is a doctrine deriving from Kierkegaard that man is not part of an ordered metaphysical scheme, but that individuals must create their own being, each in his own specific situation and environment. Meaning, the human being has his own independent thinking to define and create his own world, and so I said to myself, if that what man wants then let him be… like to have sex with a Chimpanzee, that is. I was never able to convey the reason why I had that opinion. You may find it disagreeable but didn’t humans evolved from vertebrates, then to amphibians, then to reptiles and then to mammals? And when vertebrates/amphibians/reptiles/mammals were formed, I bet the organisms from which they evolved didn’t think and talk to one another if the act of producing and what they will produce are unethical and will survive respectively. It just survived by accident, without thinking or planning that eventually came to be mammals, a family of which is the primates where human beings belong. So, how could it be unethical, when the product of a human and a chimp “may possibly” produce a new breed of species that will survive and come next to human beings in its evolution which may not happen now, but will happen, someday, even if it would take another set of millions of years.
So Sir David, that is my answer. An answer which took some years before I find the right words to express and explain it. However, now that you are not here with us physically I don’t know of your response if you agree or disagree, but one thing is for sure… you taught me to find an answer that I can defend regardless that it is disagreeable to you.
With this, I thank you.
Thank you for teaching me. For inspiring me. For calling me “everyday” in class while you didn’t call the others for the entire semester. And yes, thank you for embarrassing me too. For what happened, I was able to overcome fear of failure and was humbled by you for my arrogance. The socratic method and your calling me everyday trained me and prepared me for another rigorous chapter of my life, that is lawschool. As I was able to slay the obstacles of your calling me everyday though I didn’t always know the answer, I hope I could slay the same obstacles I face everyday in this present chapter of my life and the next that will come though again I will not always know the right answer. But I assure you I will find the answer that I can defend soundly, logically and rationally.
Thank you for smiling back at me as I smile at you along corridors, when I see you at the Palma Hall Annex better known as PHan where psychology subjects are being taught and where you always hang around. I am deeply honored to have known you and have been taught by you, in so many ways.
One of the most memorable and remarkable teachings I learned from you is what your son said awhile ago in the necrological service. He said you never valued material and earthly things like what famous and rich people do. He said he never understood you for 40 years until last month but a month later you passed away. He said what you valued are honesty, integrity and humanity. What you valued are intangible things. His sharing is so “you” sir as you said once in one of our last few meetings, “Than counting my money in the bank, I’d rather have my children come visit me everyday.” This quote wasn’t included in your 205 words of wisdom which some psychology majors compiled and listed on sheets of paper they were distributing for your tribute in church and at the PHan lobby this afternoon, but it is a quote I will not forget. And I hope I will pass the meaning of this message to my future children as you did to your own.
Farewell Sir David. Your legacy lives on.
=================================================================
An article by his daughter… click below
http://www.catanduanestribune.com/NewsArticle/Detail.aspx?newsID=3021
