Consider when people rely upon you. Sometimes that works out for them. Other times it does not.

Illusion, in that scenario, has to do with capability, but also bad faith versus sincere effort. It is something to sort out while weighing your intentions as much as those of others.

Okay. So you're saying that trust relies on the outcome of the weight we've put onto the other person. If he succeeds in what I told him I trusted him with, then I really trusted him. If he fails? Did I never trust him? I probably did.

But if I measure trust only by the outcome, isn't that not only manipulative but also conditional? Because, I could choose to "trust" anyone and see the outcome. Yet, I give my trust only to those that I believe they won't betray me in the sense of doing the opposite of what I intended them to do.

Thus, let's talk about where "trust" survives. Many times, I've seen people trusting someone, and that someone often betrayed them. Yet, these people kept their trust in them. So, is it conditional? Or is it a coping mechanism, designed to give a small bit of the weight of our existence to others, under the illusion, they won't destroy it.

However, that would imply that in this scenario " Yet, these people kept their trust in them. ", that they have no one else to put their trust in. So that must mean, there is an authentic, real type of trust.

I know all this sounds kind of messy. I'm really trying to type in what I'm feeling about it. It's just when people ask me "Do you have someone you trust?", I don't even know what that means, because it implies that trust pre-exists consequence.

Firstly, welcome to tPF.

What does it mean to "trust", — GreekSkeptic

Without looking up the definition, I'd say it was relying on something other than yourself to attain a goal of your own. Keeping a secret is part of that: You're relying on the discretion of another rather than of yourself. The 'trust fall' is another example, where you put your health in the hands of another, relying on him to prevent your injury as you fall backwards without other protection from the floor.

So I trust my mother to stand by me through thick and thin, but not to keep my secrets. She's quite the gossip.

I realized that what I thought to be "trust", in the end, it was just faith in the form of "everything's going to be fine" — GreekSkeptic

That's trust in fate, something that probably hasn't earned it. It's going to let you down if you don't take action yourself to make things more 'fine' for yourself.

So [@Paine is] saying that trust relies on the outcome of the weight we've put onto the other person. If he succeeds — GreekSkeptic

There's a lot of trust in say teamwork.
One can trust one's team to do their own part in the team effort. Maybe the trust is earned, but sometimes intentions aside, failure occurs, as it does when you do everything yourself. A negative outcome is not necessarily to abandon trust, which would be like every member of a ball team quitting because they lost a game.

You keep putting your situation in the context of your choices alone. Actual life involves the collision of your choices with others. You are not in a bunker weighing the outcome of choices. What you imagine as possible for yourself is what everyone else is doing at the same time.

When you describe how other people are dealing with trust and betrayal, it could be accurate or not by a selected criterion but you and I can never be the witness of that. The limits of our judgement should follow the limits of our perception.

What does it mean to "trust", or "to be trusted"? — GreekSkeptic

Oxford American Dictionary says—believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

Oxford American Dictionary says—believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something. — T Clark

:up: Beautiful!

To which I'd also add: belief in the reality of. Also, this being a philosophy forum: that trust is not entirely an aspect of the conscious being: we as humans acquire much trust in our lives with experience, most of which remains non-consciously held at most times. Example: we always unconsciously trust that the earth beneath our feet will not dissolve or fragment or the like, this even though no conscious thought is given to the matter - and even though, once brought into consciousness, we don't come by justifications of why this must be so all that easily. And some of it is fully innate, and hence genetically inherited. Even a human infant holds the vast body of innate unconscious trust which allows for the breast crawl instinct to take effect. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can readily enough be observed to have a far greater body of instinctive trust, such as for what is real and what to do when stimulated by it. Even though more intelligent animals, much like us, can gain or loose trust with acquired experiences (e.g., a pet dog's trust toward you). That mentioned, when we choose to trust X we consciously decide upon it, and, if the trust consciously persists, it then generally becomes a staple aspect of out unconscious body of trust via which we act and behave.

But, yea, to trust is to have confidence in, and hence to in one way or another depend upon, the reality / actuality of something - which to me can well enough encompass the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of something or someone.

When I was a kid, trusting someone would mean "someone who keeps my secrets...". — GreekSkeptic

As a tangential, if you've ever seen the movie "Cousins", there is a conversation between a grandfather and a grandchild in which the kid wants to know a secret the grandfather holds. The grandfather asks, "can you keep a secret?" To which the adolescent kid solemnly promises he can. The grandfather playful but solemnly then replies, "So can I", ending that bit of the conversation.

Poignant to me.

Trust is one of those words with multiple meanings shaped by different contexts. Trusting a plane to fly safely is different from trusting a relative with your life savings, which in turn differs from trusting the promise of a prisoner sharing your cell. In the end, we might reduce the concept to something like predictability and confidence based upon a set of odds.

What does it mean to "trust", or "to be trusted"? — GreekSkeptic

Now that I’ve given the rigidly literal meaning of the word “trust,” I’ll give one with a bit more nuance. This is from Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of verse 49 of the Tao Te Ching.

“The sage has no set mind (ch'ang hsin),
He takes the mind of the people as his mind.
The good (shan) I am good to them,
The not good I am also good to them.
This is the goodness of nature (te).
The trustworthy (hsin) I trust them,
The not trustworthy I also trust them.
This is the trust of nature (te).
The sage in the world,
Mixes (hun) the minds (hsin) of all.
The people lift up their eyes and ears,
The sage treats them all like children.”

You can find quite a few explications of these lines. I think of them as recognizing that sometimes you risk more by not having faith in people than you do by trusting them—that trust is not an actuarial judgment.

Also, this being a philosophy forum: that trust is not entirely an aspect of the conscious being: we as humans acquire much trust in our lives with experience, most of which remains non-consciously held at most times — javra

I agree with this, although I will pull the old switcheroo and use that hated word “faith.” I think the two words are very close to synonymous.

I agree with this, although I will pull the old switcheroo and use that hated word “faith.” I think the two words are very close to synonymous. — T Clark

'Trust' would be good for what has been seen before, such as that night will fall, whereas 'faith' finds good use for what has never been seen.

Trust' would be good for what has been seen before, such as that night will fall, whereas 'faith' finds good use for what has never been seen. — PoeticUniverse

Perhaps. But I think what @javra was describing could be called faith—or maybe intuition—as well as trust. As I understand it, all three are based significantly on past experience, as well as other factors.

I do not think so. We can trust someone's opinion but it is necessarily based on our own misjudgments of character.

When I think of trust I think of friendship and the people I can rely on to say what is difficult to say rather than say nothing. Trust for me is an Active Function not passive

Perhaps. But I think what javra was describing could be called faith—or maybe intuition—as well as trust. As I understand it, all three are based significantly on past experience, as well as other factors. — T Clark

In certain contexts, I could see how the three terms could be interchangeable. However, here are some differences I think notable:

Re intuition: We sometimes do consciously choose what to trust and what not to trust. We, however, don’t ever consciously choose what intuitions to have.

Re faith: The term “faith” has definitions, and meanings, which range quite a bit. The following are just two such meanings: Sometimes it’s synonymous to reason or evidence grounded trust one nevertheless engages in unthinkingly; however imperfectly so grounded, this type of trust can yet be readily justified by you once it is brought into consciousness (e.g., I have faith in my friend’s passing the test, this on account of them having studied for it and having to brains to so pass. Or: I have faith each and every day that the sun will rise again tomorrow, this on account of there being no credible alternative to the contrary. Or: I have faith that, however unlikely, it is yet physically possible to hold a winning lottery ticket while in the jaws of a shark just as a lightning bolt strikes (I have a thing for the latter example when it comes to probabilities of what is physically possible :razz: )) Other times it stipulates trust that is neither grounded in experience nor coherent reasoning (e.g., I have faith in the Spaghetti Monster responding to my prayers if only I pray sincerely enough; I have faith in the spiritual reality of unicorns; I have faith that in the next month I will have won the lottery when I’ll be bitten by a shark while swimming in the sea/ocean just as I’m being hit by a lightning bolt.). Here things can indeed get far more tricky, since both are forms of what could well have been at some past juncture consciously chosen trust. And all these are impossible to have devoid of at least some experience. Yet both will require consciously aware will to maintain (unlike, for example, a baby’s trust that it will find the nipple to suckle on when placed on its mom’s belly—for this trust is had without conscious volitions).

All that said, trusting things such as that the alarm clock will wake you up as you expect is not equivalent to having faith that it will, this in the second aforementioned sense of the term. And this because you generally have good reason to so trust, even if its engaged in unthinkingly.

Same, then, with trusting another human: one's trust can either be grounded in some form of reasoning or evidence and thereby be justifiable once questioned or, else, one can simply take a leap of faith in trusting the other, in which case you won't be able to properly justify why you trusted.

Re intuition: We sometimes do consciously choose what to trust and what not to trust. We, however, don’t ever consciously choose what intuitions to have. — javra

I agree. Maybe it would be better to say intuition is a mechanism by which trust and faith often work.

The term “faith” has definitions, and meanings, which range quite a bit. — javra

This is true, and the things you’ve said about it are also correct. My particular take on faith comes from a specific direction. Faith gets a lot of contempt here on the forum as a synonym for unjustified belief. I’ve taken it upon myself to try to rehabilitate it as a valid epistemological method.

Faith gets a lot of contempt here on the forum as a synonym for unjustified belief. I’ve taken it upon myself to try to rehabilitate it as a valid epistemological method. — T Clark

:grin: Groovy. :up:

in the end, it was just faith in the form of "everything's going to be fine", — GreekSkeptic

I think something like this is right. To trust someone is to believe that they will engage cooperatively with you; that is, they will act in good faith towards your mutual benefit. Whereas, you do not trust someone who you believe is likely to exploit you, that is, to act for their own benefit without regard for your own, even if it means you are harmed.

If you think about it, these are the two basic strategies available an individual of a social species: mutual cooperation, and exploitive freeloading. I believe that these two strategies are what are actually captured by the concepts of good and evil. And so, we trust those we believe to be "good people".