Is it OK for a philosopher to be inconsistent?

Answer 1

Yes!...no wait, I'll say No...hmm..I'll get back to you, or not.

Answer 2

It's a must.
Lol
Actually it depends a lot on the kind of philosophy one is following: I would rarely judge an analytical philosopher to be inconsistent, on the other hand some continental philosophers (especially post-modernists) are definitely inconsistent.

Answer 3

If a philosopher is inconsistent, then which of his/her statements do you follow? Which represents what he means?
Ayn Rand said, "Take them at their word." She meant, you cannot read their minds. These are people who we allow to lead us, because they take the idea of thinking seriously. But if today they say "A", and tomorrow they say "B" without retracting "A" or without giving a reason for the contradiction, we must judge their inconsistency as a fault in logic.
And when they say something that appears to be illogical or irrational, we must "take them at their word" and understand the consequences of their illogic; we must understand what that illogic would be if people followed it to its logical conclusion. In taking them at their word we can then decide if their words are worth our respect.
After all, if they are inconsistent, then their epistemology is not consistent, and epistemology is the first thing every philosopher must understand with consistency, because otherwise all he says may contain the possibility of a fatal error, and that fatality will be of an individual or of a civilization.

Answer 4

Everyone is!
Inconsistent
Contradictory
Surely that's the BEST way to be? If you have a belief about something... but then later on, having researched or discovered new "evidence" you amend and change your original stance and belief... is that being inconsistent or is that evolving and incorporating new understanding?

Nowt wrong with inconsistency, what DOES annoy me is sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy.

Answer 5

As many issues in philosophy can't be proven or disproven by reference to any evidence, the only test you can apply to a theory is its consistency. Proof that you are being inconsistent is proof that there is something wrong with your argument.

Answer 6

Yes - inconsistency is to be expected since personal truths are based upon their knowledge up to a point... It is always possible that new experience or knowledge can change an old truth. It is also possible to simultaneously see many possible perceptions of one 'reality.'

Answer 7

An incosnsitent philosopher is just as useless as talking gossip.
He has to know the truth he is talking about and live it, not only speak about it .

Answer 8

Philosophy is both speculative and analytical. As such, inconsistency as far as viewpoints are concerned has always been the norm.

Answer 9

Inconsistency defines life...... if any living being is too consistent, what would be the difference from the inanimate? Moreover, too much consistency could also denote stagnation!!

Answer 10

yes, it is - there are no definite answers in philosophy, and even the best philosophers can not be positively correct 100% of the time

Answer 11

yes, it shows that your thought processes aren't stagnant that you are flexible and willing to change your views as your knowledge grows and it also shows a willingness to admit when your wrong