A self-consistent philosophy can be completely false while inconsistent systems hold truth

Evidence

A philosophy which is not self-consistent cannot be wholly true, but a philosophy which is self-consistent can very well be wholly false. The most fruitful philosophies have contained glaring inconsistencies, but for that very reason have been partially true. There is no reason to suppose that a self-consistent system contains more truth than one which, like Locke’s, is obviously more or less wrong. — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2213

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2213
• XREF: connects to: Philosophical inconsistency can generate richer intellectual movements than rigid logical consistency. — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2085; Validity of a syllogism relates exclusively to form rather than content — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 443; Syllogistic validity requires each term keep one consistent sense — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1193 (+20 more)

Broader Connections

• Philosophical inconsistency can generate richer intellectual movements than rigid logical consistency. #expands (0.75) — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2085