Philosophy and Ufology



'What the fuck was that?' defines Ufological enquiry. Three questions follow by logical extension and form the impetus for the entire field of speculation.

1. Where do they come from?
2. How did they get here? and-
3. What do they want?

The entirety of the vast body of Ufer literature is devoted- depending on the relative ambition of the author- to answering one or more of those three questions. It's interesting that those very same queries also form the basis of all Philosophical, Metaphysical and Scientific investigation regarding the nature of existence per se.

Drake's Equation and Fermi's paradox are typical of the concomitant blending of the fields. Both beg the largest of questions and demonstrate the futility of scientific method regarding a cohesive theory- the answer to the questions they pose. And why? Because both are based in presuppositions that are themselves unproven. It's the nature of presuppositions to be assumptions derived from anecdotal data. That's actually the contradiction that lies at the heart of all Ontological hypothesis and it necessarily substitutes 'belief' for 'proof' as the foundation of Theory. Such is the nature of human endeavor to provide a proof of any existents beyond the brackets of Logic and is the reason that rationalists insist that logic does not apply to the 'real world' except by the (tenuous) extrapolation of analogy.

So this is the Epistemological dilemma in a nutshell: Every speculation concerning existence is ultimately founded in nothing more 'proven' than a leap of faith. Why should the study of Ufology escape conformity to this universal conundrum?

Does all of this mean that, despite the contradictions and the futility, that the questions ought not be even asked in the first place? Certainly there are those who would say precisely that- that adherence to rational skepticism precludes flights of imaginative speculation. I'm not among them for one simple reason- a simple choice, really- a choice to be curious about the mind of God.