The Vein of Speech 10: Is Changing One's Mind Always Undesirable?

Forget him, he has no consistency!

Is changing one's mind always undesirable? .

You have probably heard it said, sometimes in disparagement of a person: "So-and-so has no consistency," or "So-and-so has changed his opinion ten times." These kinds of criticisms suggest that when an individual's opinion or way of life changes, that person is no longer trustworthy or admirable, and conversely, if someone remains steadfast and unwavering in their opinion and way of life over many years, they are trustworthy and admirable. Just recently, a journalist on his Facebook page criticized a well-known Iranian intellectual in this manner, saying that after 15 years, he is still wandering. This time, I want to strike at the vein of this notion that "consistency is admirable and change is suspect," and oppose it, arguing instead in favor of the claim that neither "consistency" nor "change" is, in and of itself, a virtue or a vice; what is virtuous in this matter is "being honest with oneself," whether this honesty leads to consistency or to change.

The first flaw of consistentism is that consistentists usually have one foot on one side of the roof and the other on the other side. If someone changes their opinion and converts to their viewpoint, they then forget that changing one's opinion was bad in their view and consistency of opinion was good. In this case, they praise the individual who has joined them with laudatory epithets like "enlightened" and "guided." But if someone breaks away from their viewpoint and turns to another perspective, they then remember again that consistency was good and change was bad, and therefore they bestow upon that individual labels such as "revisionist" and "dilettante."

But a more serious flaw is that consistentists seem to consider themselves infallible, for otherwise, how could one speak in praise of consistency? Every opinion and way of life, without any exception, may be fundamentally erroneous, or at least carries the possibility of error; even if it is not fundamentally erroneous, its branches, leaves, and important details may be erroneous. Even if someone disagrees with this judgment and, hypothetically, believes that one can have an opinion and way of life in which there is not even a possibility of error, the game is still not over. Because such a person, if they want to take their claim seriously, must argue in favor of their claim and respond to criticisms. But the very moment such an individual begins to argue and respond to criticisms, this act signifies an abandonment of consistentism. Why? Because when you truly expose yourself to reasoning and criticism, you no longer know what will happen and who will convince whom. Perhaps the consistentist will convince the other party, but perhaps the other party will convince the consistentist. On this basis, entering seriously and authentically into reasoning and criticism means bidding farewell to consistentism and being prepared for change.

I have said all this, but one must not fall off the other side of the roof either. That is, one should not think that if someone remains constant in an opinion, there is necessarily a flaw in their approach, and that every kind of change of opinion and way of life is praiseworthy. It is entirely possible that an individual has been honest with themselves and has also been prepared for change, but even after years, their opinion and way of life remain more or less constant. Such a person is not a consistentist, because they are prepared for change but have not yet found reasons within themselves to change. The consistentist praises consistency, but the aforementioned individual is not a praiser of consistency, although in practice they have not changed much. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that an individual is constantly changing their opinion and way of life, but has done so not out of a search for truth, but out of conformity with the crowd and the fashion of the time. Such a person is one of change, but is not worthy of praise and trust because they have not been honest with themselves, or in other words, have not been an authentic individual.

Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936), the Spanish philosopher, theologian, and writer, in one of his novels, skillfully portrays a change of opinion that has occurred in a finely crafted and authentic manner. He depicts a priest in a remote village who, over time, has become an atheist. Nevertheless, the change of opinion occurs in him so authentically and honestly that it transforms him into a saint. See "Saint Manuel Bueno, Martyr," in: Abel and Other Stories, Miguel de Unamuno, translated by Baha' al-Din Khorramshahi.

Yaser Mirdamadi / The Vein of Speech 10