Logical Inconsistency Vs. Self-Referential Inconsistency

One very important concept in philosophy is consistency. It is one of the evaluation criteria agreed upon by philosophers that a philosophical claim must meet. For a philosophical statement to be considered reliable, one of the tests that it must pass is whether it is consistent or not. A valid philosophy cannot contain any contradictions. Although not always obvious at first, many philosophical claims are inconsistent and need to be revised. When thinking philosophically, there are two types of inconsistency to be aware of, know how to identify, and try to avoid using when practicing sound philosophy.

The first type of inconsistency is logical inconsistency. Logical inconsistency refers to making two assertions that could not both be true under any possible circumstances, that is, they completely contradict one another. For instance, suppose a philosopher states that God determines everything in the world but that humans have free will. These two assertions completely contradict one another for if we are determined, how can we be free as well? To avoid this logical inconsistency, these terms would need to be defined differently from what they normally were to clarify how this could be. Therefore, if a philosophy is logically inconsistent, then it cannot possible be a very good one.

The next type of inconsistency to notice is self-referential inconsistency. Self-referential inconsistency is an assertion that implies that it itself cannot be true, cannot be known to be true, or should not be believed, that is, it itself claims itself to be false. For example, if a philosopher says that all opinions are false, he has just implied that the statement he just uttered was false because it was an opinion. These types of statements, self-referential statements, completely refute themselves so, therefore, cannot be considered good philosophies either. Self-referential inconsistency is a more subtle inconsistency than logical inconsistency and can sometimes be a bit harder to notice.

Logical inconsistency and self-referential inconsistency are two common mistakes found in philosophical arguments. Logical inconsistency refers to making claims that could not possibly both be true, whereas self- referential inconsistency claims itself to be false. These two types of inconsistency are key to understanding philosophy and evaluating philosophical claims. Understanding the difference between these two terms clearly and knowing how to identify them within statements can help you to comprehend and think better philosophically, critically, and analytically and is a key tool to any great philosopher.