Well...one can be wise even if one makes mistakes. I guess wisdom is evident in those who learn from their mistakes, but also admits that they are still capable of making mistakes.
This makes for some healthy humility but also an ability to forgive others for their mistakes...I mean, we don't make mistakes on purpose, as a general rule.
The philosopher Arne Næss was frequently attacked for "inconsistencies" in his philosophical views, and the funny thing is that he admitted to these and also warned that he would be very likely to be changing his view again in the near future, depending on what he had learnt from previous his previous philosophical mistakes....
When reading articles and interviews, one will find many instances where he is confronted with his mistakes and it is almost as if he relishes in these moments; completely detached from the egoic tendency that most others in this instance would display where they would venture into furious defence of their cemented view rather than stopping for a moment to consider the other aspects introduced.
The interesting thing is that he had this ability to talk to people of all beliefs and backgrounds, and people found themselves deeply affected and influenced by this man, not so much because of his actual views....he insisted that the last thing he intended was for people to adopt his view; the actual purpose of his methods was to introduce a new way of thinking where one is invited to encourage dialogue that includes rather than excludes a multitude of views. In this way, a diversity of views is what constitutes the whole which would be the more true reflection of a society; much like ecosystems where the system has a healthy function through the profound integration of each part, and not through division, isolation or worse: the destruction of single components.
In any case, I think this is where his suggestion of philosophical method becomes entirely useful; it invites to open dialogue without making the mistake of becoming involved in value-attachments. That is not to say values are not important, philosophical discussions can serve the very purpose of defending values, but during philosophical discussion emotions could cloud judgement and thus cause emotional conflict which rarely leads to anything positive.
I think I just rambled a little......anyway, this dude's worth exploring:
RIP Arne Næss