Ralph Waldo Emerson (via minuswell, who probably likes this for the same reason I do).
Nietzsche tried hard to communicate why systematization of thought was detrimental to philosophical integrity. Look no further than Hegel, whose system is complete enough to swallow the whole universe of inquiry but leaves man shivering and alone, waiting for the Existentialists’ rescue.
Systematization of thought, the imposition of consistency and the extension of ideas to their limits, is an urge we all have; it’s particularly destructive politically, in governmental and private organizations. The application of Marxism to art and music, or the manner in which companies begin to stupidly force the latest business-speak stratagem from their CEO on the most minute details of their operations, exemplify this.
We all like to logically abstract our principles and then instantiate them in the areas of our lives; we seek consistency, formality, codification, standardization, and the smooth, clean system of the purely logical world. We subordinate reality to this vision: everything we see reminds us of our favorite candidate’s ideas, our favorite author’s theses.
The flaw inherent in seeking consistency or systematization is that you place a higher value on those qualities than on the inherent properties of whatever you’re systematizing. If we are trying to construct HR policy that is “fair and just,” but begin to overly standardize its processes and remove autonomy from managers, we have have reduced its fairness and justice in the interest of consistency.
The search for a truly full system in any field or endeavor, one both complete and coherent, was dealt a blow first by Wittgenstein and then by physicists, but it persists. It persists despite the fact that we all know what works: inconsistency, decentralization, flexibility, local implementation of ideas and communities, policies at the individual level, and so on. It’s why we want to work for start-ups and not monoliths.
But still, every damn day in meetings, I hear, “Well, we have to be consistent.” No, we don’t.
(Note: it is important to observe the word “foolish” in the quote; not all consistency is foolish, of course).