Where does that leave us? Where does that leave Emerson? I guess one could be an apologist and focus on "foolish," but that turns the quote into, "Consistency is bad, except when it isn't."
Why do people even care about random quotes from a crazy transcendentalist? Just because something is old and sounds profound doesn't mean it's correct.
Foolishness is part of a foolish consistency. A well-reasoned consistency is nobody's hobgoblin. This is not, of course, to say that well-reasoned consistency precludes foolish consistency in other areas.
