If I even partially thought that people would stab me. I could not call them friends. Allies maybe, but friends, no. Aquaintance would possibly fit in too.
Friends don’t require trust, just knowledge. You don’t have to trust a friend you just have to know them and they you. If you know them, then you can safely leave your back open without that nagging worry of impossible trust. Friends are known. Allies and aquaintances are unknown.
You can have a person as a good friend without trust, if you know them.
Besides, trust is is for the innocent.
What say you Mas and Faust plus all others? Oh and I just know Tent, is lurking to ambush out there somewhere
In the first tense, lady Kriswest, one must define one’s “self”, although it appears most assume this knowledge to be a priori.
In the second, one must define the social “self”, before the crux of the contention can be ascertained. (lately, not sure if it is an ILP “mood” or what, but there is a lot of talk of “self”, without any predicating defintion … which faustest would likely be better at than myself, he’s the logician in the mix)
Then “self” versus “other” identification, (again, with proper logic of what comprises “other” by defintion) with regards to interpersonal, or social relations.
Then come the value judgements, and their precarious placements with respect to the three preceding instances.
Wow! Mas, you have to go through all of that? Defining self and your social personna before aquiring social connections? I would think the only way to do that is to go out and be social. I mean how can you figure out what you are or want from people without experiencing a social setting.
See I kind of think, to find your social group you learn what makes them tick and go from there. You don’t have to trust them to like them you just need to know them. By knowing you learn their buttons, quirks, weaknessess and strengths. Thus if you find yourself in situations, you will know or accurately guess their reactions or actions. Trust has nothing to do with it and trust just causes you to be blind to who they are. which if you trust you can be betrayed. If you know them then you can’t be so easily betrayed.
A friend is well known, an aquaintance, is partially known and an ally you never ever turn your back on nor depend upon them.
There are a number of things that are involved, it was a pronouncement of my perspective, nothing more.
My sociality is limited to the corporate environment, where the only interactions by me, are those pertaining to work. Generally, looking at these “people” reminds me of how deeply the desire runs for them to stop breathing my oxygen. Summarily, they are “other”.
Virtually, everyone who is met, is other. Other than being a homonid, their “self” does not coincide or harmonise with my “self”.
They are loathsome and detestable. In such a manner, it is best not to “sleep with the enemy”.
I’d agree that friend or foe, it is in knowing. Actually, it is trust nonetheless. I trust those I call friends to play nice. I can trust enemies to not play nice. Either way, I can rely on my knowing to “trust” how they will act. I don’t have to like 'em to work with them. I just need to know what I should expect and then I can act accordingly. Faust is right about the sliding scale. It’s the ones in the middle that create the problems. Best to always have orifi protectors available in those situations. (ifyou need a first aid kit, you’ve already been … uhhh, well, you know)
You actually embue others with “trust”? Or are you saying that with a certain amount of knowledge there is a coinciding level of prediction regarding behavior?
Thank you! You just defined trust! At least in the social sense. There are levels of trust. The fact that I trust an adversary to screw me over if I give them the opportunity isn’t the same sort of trust I might give a special woman with whom trust involves being completely vulnerable with. Of course, trusting a woman has it’s own risks…
Trust your enemy to screw you, Trust that your friends won’t harm you.
The problem with trusting people, you must have an innocent soul. I can say that I believe My dearest friends won’t harm me unless…(insert circumstance here), The same goes for family. Do I trust that they won’t harm me or mine. No. I don’t trust that.
I can hope, given ideal and normal situations they will not. I trust that give abnormal situations they probably will. I don’t trust the person. I hope that with my knowledge of the person I can predict what they will do or say, but, even then knowledge is fragmented because you rarely truly know someone and then it is based on past experience and factual knowledge of their past and personna.
You can hope. Hope is not trust. Would it not be more accurate to claim hope rather than trust.
I can trust that within two seconds of my typing this I will go rescue a screaming pup that can’t find it’s momma’s teat. Since Momma is laying there with five others attached, that is not prediction, that is fact. You can’t trust predictions you can trust facts. Humans are not factual creatures.
Heck I would bet money that Mother Theresa screwed someone sometime.
Oh goody, tentative is in the mood for symbology games!!! Yea!!!
Dear sir,
You have breached the necessary protocols of formal defintion. It with deepest regret that I must inform the venerable and decidedly enlightened older gentleman, that prediction does not linguistically equate to trust, under exacting scrutiny.
The author of present post requests that the kindly and sangfroid mannfreunde please present, in due course, his defintions for trust and prediction, for comparative analyses by the audience.
Sincerely,
The uneducated plebeian and attached sheepled masses
Picky picky picky. Trust and prediction aren’t the same thing, nor did I suggest such, but they are closely related.
Trust is a consequence of prediction and repeatability. This is true in human interaction as well as any observable phenomena. To the extent that you perform in a predictable pattern of behavior, I can then “trust” further predictions as likely. The more instances of repeated performance of said behavioral patterns, the greater reliance or trust to be assigned.
In the same way, I trust that the sun will come up in the morning. This has a high degree of predictability since it has managed to repeat the performance for at least 60 some odd years. Nothing has 100% certainty. (the sun might not come up tomorrow) But the sun coming up does have a reasonably high degree of likelhood - except for you.
Fine, fine, I still say it isn’t trust, just that you induce prediction and make a qualitative judgement upon such that allows you comfort.
I thought trust was a condition whereby the trustor made allowance to trustee on a less than substantial amount of knowledge, assuming inherent “goodness” on the part of the trustee …
Or, more basically, what lady Kriswest asserted in her previous post, as fundamentally naivete`?
That the sun will shine, there is little doubt, process dictates that light is not so easily dismissed. That the light can reach humanity, well …
Well sure. To the extent that you aren’t pointing a gun at me, I’ll allow a certain amount of unproven trust. But very quickly, demeanor and actions must match up if I’m to grant further trust. Sometimes, it may depend on what I had for lunch.
Having basically no real knowledge of someone like, perhaps, me, you would afford trust?
Don’t you think that is tantamount to at least bad judgement?
I really fail to understand you people. I’ve been married for … ever, and even she is only allowed a modicum of “trust”. Anyone else gets the zero zone in any case.
Friends are adversaries you have knowledge of, enemies are just unknown quantities, period. What’s wrong with that perspective? It’s far safer than what you say you allow.
Yes KM true friends will and generally they apologize while they are in the process of doing it. Heck sometimes they even warn you.
Tent, My friend You Lurker you. You know I was yanking your chain a touch.
I see you with a cape and tights and the intials JL emblazoned upon your tight costumed chest JL means JUSTICE LURKER Or LURKER OF JUSTICE
You can hope you know the people you can’t really say its trust. Trust is for facts. You can only trust non wavering non variable facts. Everything else is hope. Trust is absolute guarantee of results or outcomes.
You can’t trust humans, they are variables and waver with the breeze. Now if we were robots and preprogrammed to not shift at all, you might maybe trust a human.But, you can hope you know them well enough to predict what they will behave like toward you.
I can predict that my husband will risk his life to protect me. I can’t trust that he will, he may have a brain fart and not react as he normally would. I am hitting that mentalpause state of my life, he may have some lingering resentment of my adorable bitchiness.
I can trust that I will drown if I don’t eventually get out of a deep lake. I can’t swim forever.
