I currently do not believe that a person has to be completely consistent in philosophy, actions and ideals. I feel like within American culture it is said to be a fault to hold certain ideals and act in ways that contradicts them. Currently i believe it is simply a feature of being human to be like this. To be aware of this is more, useful, I think to the person with these attributes than to not be. Aware of it or not, I believe a human can have several philosophies, that motivate different actions dependent on the particular situation.

This idea shows itself in questions like " Why would a person do that ?". There is a dominant culture, where most people acquire ideas of what they should be. Ideas like i should be a moral person, a good parent and American citizen . How one human may process the ideas of the dominant culture is unique to the creature. Some may end up with these philosophies as their own or, it may be the driving force behind a completely different philosophy. While others who grow up in different conditions may not carry philosophies with qualities that American hold in high regard. A great example is Genghis khan, a man who has been called barbaric by historians. Genghis Khan grew up amongst war tribes, our peaceful normality was not his. Fighting or dying was an obligation to his survival, his ability to survive joined together the warring steppe tribes created the country of Mongolia and of course struck a violent mark on history. But violence was the world than his khan knew, it was apart of his life like iPhones are in ours.

Either way the dominant philosophy of the culture is one within our environment, anger from a parent who left you at a young age may bring another. It is not necessary to be completely consistent in philosophy because it is not necessary to change the state you are currently in. What a person may need is a deeper understanding of themselves and the motivators of their actions, which is of course realizing that there is more than one or two philosophies working in the body.

In myself I have found ideas that were not consistent with other philosophies , at first I thought that I had to change this, mold one idea to fit the other. But, I came to the realization that both were parts of myself, both ideas existed in the same mind when I was unaware of it, but the minute I became aware of the inconsistency in my philosophy an inner warfare begun. On till, I decided to return to my former state, not the state of ignorance but back to the state of peace. The ideas are not incompatible, their compatibility was shown in the fact that they could exist in one mind. The question is why was the mind peaceful with this inconsistency, because the human mind can and does carry more than one philosophy, or driving force for thought and action.

When I decided to let this go, it was a decision to let these two ideas be, let them grow individualy, let them change in whatever way naturally, merge possibly. But, it was also me accepting my self as I am, I feel like as a philosopher you will meet parts of your self that you were unaware of constantly. The decision to change your self is a personal one, it may also be a logical pursuit, understanding what we are, our limits and possibilities can help us with these decisions.

These are some of my thoughts and current beliefs . Please comment, so I can grow on my philosophical journey.