can a theory be logicaly possible but incoherent and foundationless??

Question

i have talked to many philosophers and also alot of website. and all of them said they were irrefutable, but also "neccesserily incoherent" is the most commonly phrased when describing solipsism. it is also declared baseless and foundationless in order for it to make sense to itself.

any ideas?

Answer 1

to me, to be logically possible, would mean that you just have to accept that it is possible,,,no matter how small a percentage of possibility you give it ,,, or rather that you cant prove that its not possible,,,,,,, basically , anything you cant disprove would be a logical theory,,,, though i dont see what logic they used to come up with solipsism,,,,, except for the possibilty of anything

Answer 2

well.

Never actually heard of solipsism before this, but I had been preaching it for quite some time. hmmm.

I would think that this question is referring to the fact that some ideologies, such as religion, are based on contradictory evidence and upon paradoxes, yes?

If so, those who believe in religious philosophy profess that exact form- one that has no real backing and is ridiculous if seen from an outside source, and one that is logically implausible- of philosophy that you search for.

As for logically possible, things like the Hegelian dialectic are reasonable and logical, but are in practice and (as seen by many as logically) flawed. The hegelian dialectic does nothing for the liver, that person who tries to actually decide and think for himself. It ids merely a system for hypothesizing about what could have been, and for analyzing the past. but logically, the system for thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, is perfectly fine- it takes a middle ground on every thing.

As for solipsism, I believe that things must be built around one's conscious and one's perception of reality. If one perceives reality as completely blue, then their entire learning base is stemmed from a blue world. But as for nothing else existing but your mind, you are first assuming that the thinker exists. By building straight from the ground, one can see that it is not a person that exists, but a consciousness. This consciousness creates for itself a suitable self and develops a suitable world to live its conscious within. The perceptions taken in via the senses that shape the conscious each do their part in creating the reality that the conscious projects against its own eyes. thus, the conscious interprets all it wishes, and it knows only what it is told. thus a conscious is a learnable self that has the ability to project its knowledge upon its developed self.

good luck.

Answer 3

Yes.

The psychological term is "confirmation bias". This means that we search for information that proves our point of view. It also means that we ignore other information that would disagree without point of view.

Finding 2 or 3 examples, or to test original assumptions is usually a good way to discover the difficulties with those who consider themselves "irrefutable".

I sometimes ask: "are you willing to be open to the possibility that you might be wrong." Anyone who isn't is suffering from arrogance.

Answer 4

quite. Religous theory; on an identical time because it somewhat is logically "achieveable" that mankind became into created in resembling "god", that concept is untestable and foundationless (assuming which you rightly question the authenticity of particular "divinely stimulated" texts. "Incoherent" is a judgement call.

Answer 5

Faith is the essence of things unseen. Be sensitive to the signs. Can a theory be logical but foundationless? YES!!!