In the philosophical works of Kolakowski, the concept of inconsistency is a guideline that moves the subject closer to truth. Truth disappears when consistency prevails, that is a logic, a method, a tradition of thinking. And there is no need to reject the sequence in general, as there is no need to follow it. But there is a conflict between Kolakowski as the Thinker and Kolakowski as the Human Being. The first one tries to find the best way to describe the world with concepts, the second one wants to gain a comfortable existence in the world. The first needs doubt, the second wants to feel certainty. The philosopher as the Human Being wants to have a firm belief in those things the Thinker can only be hopeful of. The purpose of the article is to show how the Human Being and the Thinker compete in Kolakowski’s works, as their understanding of truth and the ways to it are different. Kolakowski’s paradox is that the inconsistency of the mind should advance us towards the truth, but it reinforces doubts whether truth is possible in general. If you replace the inconsistency with faith, the prospect becomes even foggier. Consequently, the author concludes that Kolakowski stayed in the state of uncertainty regarding how to solve the conflict. Theoretically, he prescribes the need for faith but does not explain how to practically combine faith and doubt in one head. The Thinker often wins with the Human Being and then retreats and comes back again. The Thinker and the Human Being are not an identical opposition to rational and irrational. It is a conflict which concerns the two subject guidelines: will to know and will to exist.