ABSTRACT
From our foregoing exposition, the gestalt theory seems to be by no means so well founded, even in its earliest domain, that of perception, as to deserve to be called a theory in the genuine sense of the term. It is evident in numerous places, that the doctrines of the gestalt theory do not, upon more exact interpretation and keenly pursued conceptual analysis, do justice to the facts; they do not correspond to the richness and abundance of the implica tions of the problems, which are really comprised in the facts. In other instances a direct opposition between the theory and experimental findings is displayed. Nowhere, however, is an example to be found, where the observations could really cogently lead one to accept the theory.
