There is a somewhat famous saying by Vince Graham, popularized by Nassim Taleb in Skin in the Game, describing how his political ideologies vary based on the level of governance:

I am, at the federal level, Libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; at the family and friends level, a socialist; and with my dog, I’m a “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” Marxist.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Vince’s views at these levels, he does illustrate an important point: scale matters when it comes to political alignment. Maybe there are some rare groups of people who hold a globally consistent view on governance, but for most people, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all ideology for all levels. I think the same is true for philosophical beliefs, but in an even more complicated way. There are more dimensions on which people’s philosophies can vary.

Someone may be a consequentialist (i.e. consequences of actions are what matter) for larger scale issues, yet become deontological (i.e. intentions of actions are what matter) for more trivial things. This may seem inconsistent, or even contradictory, but practically it is actually very reasonable. Simultaneously believing that “a politician whose well-intentioned policy ends up generating terrible results should be removed from office” and “a co-worker who purchased a birthday gift that I actually (unbeknownst to him/her) dislike should still be thanked for the thought” is just applying different philosophies at different levels of effect.

A generally hard-working Stoic may from time to time turn into a Hedonistic partier for a night out. Believing that “I should work diligently and hold a calm, rational demeanor in general” and “I can forgo all concerns for the future and pursue pure pleasure tonight” is not conflicting. It’s simply holding different philosophical beliefs for different time scales, long vs. short term. Yet another example is that one may be an empiricist in some fields, valuing experience above all else, and a rationalist in others, looking to logic for all answers. This is how philosophies can vary depending on context and environment.

Arguably, these variations in personal philosophies can be thought of as mental compartmentalizations of disjointed, irreconcilable beliefs, a sign of intellectual immaturity. But I think more realistically, almost no one is a pure believer in most schools of thought universally¹. This does not make a person’s views weaker, or less committed. It is simply a nature of the complexities of life.

The question that remains is then: what is this meta-philosophy that describes how a person’s beliefs vary, the map of the mind’s base structure?