UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

The Philosophical Underpinnings of Some UFO Buffs?

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

I am intrigued by how some visitors here think, those that do think, (Not all do.)

I favor Plato, as do most of the RRRGroup fellows who work on blogs with disciplines that are far from the UFO topic; most are neo-Platonists.

There is a heavy reliance, by us, on the thought processes of the 13th Century Scholastics, who were Aristotelian, as even the great Thomas Aquinas agreeing with the admired Aristotle in his Summa Theologiae on the matter of God and Evil: Aristotle arguing, in a metaphor that God as the Captain of the Ship was responsible for its destination and crew; that is, God is the Captain of humanity’s destination and if humanity is Evil then God, as the Captain is responsible for Evil.

Aquinas tried to work Aristotle out of that view but ends up, by ratiocination, supporting it.

Also, we like that Scholastic argumentation included the question of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” – silly arguments, like those we pose here, but essential to thought processes that might arrive at certitude.

I get the impression that Paul Kimball is Cartesian, his thought processes filtered by and supported by the mental processes of Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.”  (He’ll correct me I’m sure, but that’s my impression.)

Nick Redfern is Socratic: “What do I know,” he asks?

Bruce Duensing is Hegelian. Yep!

Zoam Chomsky is a Nietzsche acolyte I believe.

Gilles Fernandez is influenced by Auguste Comte. (He just doesn’t know it.)

PurrlGurrl reminds me of Madame de Staël or, better, Mary Wollstonecraft.

Tim Hebert is Baruch Spinoza kinda.

Dominick is Augustinian surely.

Ross Evans likens his observations to that of Roger Bacon, doesn’t he?

Lance Moody adheres to the views of David Hume., but even more so.

CDA could be George Berkely reborn….indeed.

Brownie/Susan is Hypatia also reborn, isn’t she?

Anthony Bragalia would like to be identified with Jacques Derrida I believe.

Jose Antonio Caravaca has the tint of Francis Bacon about him.

Larry adheres to the ideas of Gottlob Frege….maybe.

Jerry Clark reminds me of Martin Heidegger.

Kurt Peters follows the dictates of Johann Gottleib Fichte.

Chuck Finley thinks he’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s long lost cousin.

But who is like Emmanuel Kant? Or the remarkable Jean-Paul Sartre?

And who follows The Zarkon Principle? (But that for another time.)

Let me know what you think.



  • "UFOs and psychic phenomena may indeed be real, but that does not mean pursuing them is the best use of your limited time on Earth." What my wise father told me in 1965. And he was right, but like most children, I ignored his wisdom. My journey to UFO enlightenment remains unfulfilled and the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel remains as distant as ever.

    You folks run an unusually adult and fact-based blog with a rational slant not widely seen in Ufology and I am delighted to have recently stumbled upon it.

    By Blogger solarity, at Tuesday, July 30, 2013  

  • Thank you Solarity...

    The honor is ours -- having someone visit here whose father is wise and his son too.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 30, 2013  

  • Thank you, RR for the kind mention, but I think that my philosophical leanings are somewhat closer instead to this:


    By Blogger Chuck Finley, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • I am honored to be compared to these esteemed feminine thinkers and ladies of letters. Thank you, kind sir.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • I did not realize that I had a formal philosophy but as Gurdjieff sarcastically observed, only a philosopher understands another philosopher. I was recently reading a book that recounted the delivery of a lecture by a young Carl Sagan in front of much older science academicians, wherein his chosen topic aimed squarely at his conservative audience, was the need to take ancient myths seriously in terms of the possibility of "ancient astronauts". My, how his philosophy changed, going so far as to attempt to blackball Robert Temple of "Sirius\Dogon" fame a few decades later. I think our philosophy's are our haven for a perfect world, made like a fine Swiss watch. Using philosophy, many a time I have been cued to make my grand entrance only to trip on my own shoelaces down the staircase. You didn't see that. Whether it's a car engine that won't turn over, cancer, weeds in the manicured lawn, it seems almost solipsistic to attempt a practical philosophy when dodging bullets at the same time. LOL

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Hegelian?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • I am a staunch Homer Simpsonian.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • That too?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Thanks for your comparison my friend, I think I'm very benefited... good!!!!! Long live the Sir Bacon!!!!!


    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • "There is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason."

    Makes sense to me.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Of course -- it's a totally rational observation, which you exude more often than not.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Spinoza? Pretty darn close Rich.

    Spinoza's God comes pretty close to my "evolved" conclusion, but I still retain a modicum of dualism.

    One still has to have some degree of faith (hope?). Otherwise we're no more than hamsters spinning on the wheel in our cage.:)

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • I am a fan of Schopenhauer. because he thought the Universal Will was Evil, which it is, as the Gnostics told us.

    Spinoza's idea of God and Nature makes sense to me. I'm a little surprised that you are a dualist.

    Care to explain why?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • RRRGroup -

    ..while I don't care what you call me as long as you call me for supper, I've always considered myself as more of a strict Tanstaaflian:


    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Gottlob Frege ?????

    Well, I had to go look up Gottlob Frege on Wikipedia in order to know if I should be insulted or not.

    Having done so, I have to say, you came pretty close—I definitely have a penchant for abstract logical reasoning.

    But I have a confession to make; I have a secret side. At the core, I am a mystic of the Platonic school (more or less).

    For that reason, Kurt Godel is my intellectual hero. Although he was a rational logician second to none, he was able to prove, using that very logic and rationality, that logic and rationality are fundamentally limited.

    By Blogger Larry, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Godel brilliance is without question.

    But he's not a philosopher, per se; a magnificent mathematician/thinker although he's listed among the philosophers in the book(s) I used to compile my lark.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Rich, I tend to believe that there is more to our existence than living out a normal life span. There has to be some degree of purpose to this existence, at least, that's my personal take.

    We know very little about the mechanisms of conscious thought, but I always liked William James' concept of a universal thought stream (collective thought stream?).

    As a side note, I've alluded in some of my past comments that I was a fan of Eusebius. Eusebuis was/is often criticized for lacking in original thought, yet we know that his original support of Arianism pretty much forced a "gag order" on such thoughts, ie opposing the concept of the Trinity...BTW, I discount the Trinity concept as well. I view it as a form of a theological contract fraud, but I'll leave it at that. (wars were fought over this)

    In his "History of the Church", Eusebius makes a subtle statement that is totally original:

    "His descendants, who peopled all our world, showed themselves much worse, apart from one or two, plunging into a beastly existence and a life not worth living. City and state, arts and sciences meant nothing to them; laws and statutes, morality and philosophy were not even names...nature's gift of reason and germs of thought and culture in the human soul were destroyed by the immensity of their deliberate wickedness..."

    Of course Eusebius is stating that man had to evolve to a certain state intellectual-wise to fully comprehend the nature of God. And quiet frankly the possible disengagement from God's "hand on approach" with mankind, thus a similarity to Spinoza's God.

    Simply, we have numerous intellectual "tools" at our disposal to get us through this crappy world, if we choose wisely.

    Sorry for the rambling, I rarely delve into this publicly, but it does give you some insight into some of my thoughts.

    What has this to do with UFOs? I have no damn clue.

    Best regards,

    Tim H.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Tim:

    It may have something to do with UFOs.

    How do we know (or not know)?

    I like Jung's take on the Godhead: A Quaternity; Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Satan (or Evil).

    I'm planning on doing something on consciousness, in light of some new thinking (which I discovered in The New York Review Of Books).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Rich,

    I look forward to your work. I wrote a blog post on Jung's mystical side, actually a book review as I had purchased a copy of Lachman's "Jung the Mystic: The Esoteric Dimensions of Carl Jung's life and Teachings."

    The book was a good read with keen insight into Jung's theological leanings and movement to the mystical side. Lachman had some material on Jung's views on the UFO phenomena...or should we say "archetype."

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Hypatia! What great woman she was! I couldn't compare but thankyou Rich!!

    I appreciated Hypatia's inclusion of pagans, Jews & Christians in her school. She paid dearly for her ecumenicism though, with the Christian zealots and politics as usual. Her death wasn't an easy one.

    As someone who identifies basically as a Ghostic-Christian, I can't help but find that colors my view of ufos and their occupants.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • We Gnostics, Susan, know the real truth of things.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Oh we wish! I think the big T eludes all of us, but we're compelled to continue seeking it.
    ~ S.

    By Blogger brownie, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • ...yet would ANY philosophy remain 'mute' when shown this 'evidence?:


    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • To the other Larry, I knew when Rich mentioned Frege he must be talking about you, maybe it's your mathematical precision re ufology that saw RR consider Frege your inspiration? Actually as brilliant a mathematician as Frege was, he was a despicable person (called for the expulsion of Jewry from Germany, this decades before the Nazis).

    I would say I am a Bergsonian really, for what it's worth. As for how to link Henri Bergson's philosophy to ufology, I admit it's a tough one... Tough, but not impossible.

    By Blogger Lawrence, at Thursday, August 01, 2013  

  • Thanks. Lawrence...

    I was stumped trying to think of whom fit your views. Bergson?

    Frege's snti-Jewish position was the social rule of the day -- despicable of course, and surely not a view that Larry would hold.

    Now Heidegger's obnoxious patina fits Jerry Clark; Heidegger worse than Frege, if that's possible.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 01, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home