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?

bizriak: the question makes perfect sense.

Answer 1

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 2

Yes, I think your last phrase said it: 'for it to make sense to its self'. Any theory that does not contain within its self a contradiction for any of its inherent propositions shall appear logically consistent, but only its self's logic and if facts of experience are not present to consciousness for its validation.

In solipsism, as self consciousness has not sensible proof for its identity, it is very difficult to formulate counter arguments. e.g. Bishop George Berkeley (1710)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/berkeley.htm

'80. In the last place, you will say, what if we give up the cause of material Substance, and stand to it that Matter is an unknown Somewhat - neither substance nor accident, spirit nor idea, inert, thoughtless, indivisible, immoveable, unextended, existing in no place ? I or, say you, whatever may be urged against substance or occasion, or any other positive or relative notion of Matter, hath no place at all, so long as this negative definition of Matter is adhered to - I answer, you may, if so it shall seem good, use the word 'Matter' in the same sense as other men use 'nothing', and so make those terms convertible in your style. For, after all, this is what appears to me to be the result of that definition - the parts whereof when I consider with attention, either collectively or separate from each other, I do not find that there is any kind of effect or impression made on my mind different from what is excited by the term nothing.'


It seems he is making an argument against anti-pantheism.

Answer 3

properly. in no way actually heard of solipsism formerly this, yet I have been preaching it for somewhat a while. hmmm. i'd think of that this question is relating the reality that some ideologies, alongside with faith, are in step with contradictory information and upon paradoxes, sure? if so, people who have self assurance in religious philosophy profess that suitable form- one that has no genuine backing and is ridiculous if seen from an exterior source, and one that is logically incredible- of philosophy which you seek for. As for logically obtainable, issues like the Hegelian dialectic are smart and logical, yet are in prepare and (as seen by utilising many as logically) unsuitable. The hegelian dialectic does not something for the liver, that guy or woman who tries to incredibly ascertain and think of for himself. It ids merely a equipment for hypothesizing approximately what would have been, and for analyzing the previous. yet logically, the equipment for thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, is totally superb- it takes a center floor on each and every element. As for solipsism, i've got self assurance that issues ought to be outfitted around one's wakeful and one's concept of certainty. If one perceives certainty as thoroughly blue, then their total getting to understand base is stemmed from a blue international. yet as for not the rest modern yet your concepts, you're first assuming that the reality seeker exists. by utilising development immediately from the floor, you are able to discover that it's not a guy or woman who exists, yet a expertise. This expertise creates for itself a perfect self and develops a perfect international to stay its wakeful interior of. The perceptions taken in by utilising ability of the senses that shape the wakeful each and each do their area in coming up the certainty that the wakeful initiatives against its own eyes. to that end, the wakeful translates all it needs, and it is conscious basically what it incredibly is informed. to that end a wakeful is a learnable self that has the skill to project its expertise upon its progressed self. stable luck.

Answer 4

Certainly.

Religous theory; while it is logically "possible" that mankind was created in the image of "god", that theory is untestable and foundationless (assuming that you rightly question the authenticity of certain "divinely inspired" texts. "Incoherent" is a judgement call.

Answer 5

Kind of like your question?