Is it humanly possible to trust no-one? — Hypnos

Try telling us what you suppose trust is?

Well very basically I mean here that you would follow someone else's direction/advice without questioning it, "trusting" that it's good.

Is skepticism about doubting everyone and everything? — Hypnos

No.

Is it humanly possible to trust no-one? — Hypnos

Interesting question.

Yes, you don't have to trust anyone hundred percent, but if you don't trust anyone atleast a tiny amount, it will be impossible.

You won't be able to travel unless you check your car all the time with different mechanics, or trust the driver of whatever you travel, and you won't be able to eat unless you grow your own food and cook it yourself with water you get from a lake you have tested yourself for purity.
But you need to get the seeds yourself from nature as you wouldn't go into town.

Unless you can do those things you won't be able to live.

"Kurt Gödel? Considered by some to be just as influential a logician and philosopher as Aristotle, he sadly succumbed to crippling paranoia later in life. In his sixties, he became convinced that his food was being poisoned, and would only trust the cooking of his wife Adele. When she was hospitalized for six months in 1977, Gödel refused to eat, and subsequently died of starvation."

Maybe the story is not really true and he died of sadness, losing his appetite as he should had been able to cook at least basic stuff or eat from cans.

Is skepticism about doubting everyone and everything?

no, skepticism is divided in to two groups. Those that doubt for doubting sake. Then those who are considering what we can actually know with 100% asureance.

Is it humanly possible to trust no-one?

Yes, but we need to trust someting.

Since we can be skeptical about everything, it follows that we must trust everything. That little gap between probable and certain truth always exists and we must, like it or not, bridge it with trust.

It seems then that it's not a matter of trust itself but in the degree of trust that is in question. The smaller or shorter the bridge of trust the better it is.

Yup indeed, and that little gap is (probably) not measurable, so we can't compare people on who is closer to the truth.

Since we can't have the truth... can we choose our lie?

Yup indeed, and that little gap is (probably) not measurable, so we can't compare people on who is closer to the truth.

Since we can't have the truth... can we choose our lie? — Hypnos

Bayes' theorem? I'm not sure. Google may help.

Yup indeed, and that little gap is (probably) not measurable, so we can't compare people on who is closer to the truth. — Hypnos

False. We can compare what we now to two statements, and see which has more probability of being true. For example, one person says that Sarah is a whore. The other says she is a perfect little angel. You know that Sarah has done questionable stuff before, so you choose to believe the former statement. The gaps are measurable, but not precisely. To be fair though, in some situations, the gaps are immeasurable.

The only way it is possbile to live without trusting anyone is to become totally self-sufficient, which at any advanced standard of living is impossible. So you'd end up a wandering lone nomad, living off what you could kill or steal like a wild animal. One way or another, you wouldn't last long. Our society is built on trust, even the most basic social animals like dogs could not live in a pack without trusting others to respect their position in the pecking order.

The only way it is possbile to live without trusting anyone is to become totally self-sufficient — Tim3003

Could you trust yourself?

In face you make me realize that even science is probably based on trust. The trust that the same causes will lead to the same effects.

The only way it is possbile to live without trusting anyone is to become totally self-sufficient — Tim3003


Could you trust yourself? — TheMadFool

You'd have little choice!

↪Tim3003
In face you make me realize that even science is probably based on trust. The trust that the same causes will lead to the same effects. — Hypnos

We can trust nature I think, but the question refers to whether we must trust other people. We trust that scientists are telling us the truth about the world, and that plane we're flying in won't crash even though we don't understand why not.

If an epistemological nihilist utilised a pragmatic understanding to endeavour towards some degree of success or tolerable failure in his pursuits. This might entail acting in accordance with an understanding that though they know nothing to be true, they will act in the way which seems to best give them what they want. Could he trust nothing to be true, while acting as though what seems to be true is true, hence allowing himself an ordinary life without ever acquiescing that he trusts nothing?

I might also ask whether "trust" is a spectrum or not. If I trust my friend to keep my secret, what exactly does that mean? How much do i need to be willing to think he might not keep my secret until we can't say I trust him anymore or how certain do I need to be that he will keep my secret before we say I trust him to.

As with most categorisations, there's a level of subjectivity attached and that's relevant here because even I don't trust anything 100%. I wouldn't stake my life on any belief if there's nothing to be gained or retained.

I might also ask whether "trust" is a spectrum or not. If I trust my friend to keep my secret, what exactly does that mean? How much do i need to be willing to think he might not keep my secret until we can't say I trust him anymore or how certain do I need to be that he will keep my secret before we say I trust him to. — Judaka

Of course, nothing is black and white: If I say I believe in black holes - or that I trust that they exist because scientists say so, does that mean that if NASA told me one was going to engulf my house I'd move out on spec?

Perhaps you can measure trust by whether or not you're willing to act upon it. So if in theory you trust your friend with money, in practise will you lend him some when he asks?

Was it Hume who said human has a natural tendency to believe everyone, but should not believe anyone. — Hypnos

Does this even apply to the era we are in at the moment? It seems that we have flipped this on its head and that we now have a natural tendency to not believe anyone because we now only believe our own belief.

That the narcissism of this era has made everyone skeptical of everyone and through the love of their own belief and a bias to that belief, never accept anything, even if it's proven true?

Man I just wanted to know whether it was Hume who said it

Indeed.

There's also a question of trust in a pragmatic sense, like I am an employee who has 10 staff members. If I don't trust them to do their jobs then it's going to be hard for me to run my business. The alternative is micromanaging and constant surveillance which becomes a bigger problem than it's solving.

I could treat my employees like I trust them because I think this will deliver the best results.

There's also trust in competence, like my employee says he can change a system in place in my business and make things better. I know he means what he says but I may not trust his skills to be good enough to do the job. Instead of trust, why couldn't it just be an evaluation of risk?

Trust is a word that goes thrown around a lot like it's a fairly simple thing but realistically it's not. Still, my answer is that one can trade in trust entirely for pragmatism and depending on how good he is at that, it may end up being very productive for him.

I could treat my employees like I trust them because I think this will deliver the best results. — Judaka

That means you do trust them! Unless of course you're duplicating their work behind the scenes, so as to cover over their failures when they arise..

I think 'trust' is an evaluation of risk. When trusting someone to do a job you judge that their skills are sufficient, also that your judgement of their skills is likely to be correct. If you don't think both of those, what do you do? Do you let them get on with it anyway? Only if you know you can clear up the mess afterwards I think.. And in that case the trust is not present.

Any matter of trust is about making a bargain. It comes down to judging what you have to give in order to get what you want.

Friedrich Nietzsche
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

You think so?

Does no trust mean that you always plan for the worst case scenarios as though they're the most likely?

Never enter your house without a weapon and make sure to clear all the hiding places?

Never ride in anyone else's car.

Complete paranoia in all things?

My employees might do their jobs properly or might not, I don't know but I certainly don't trust them to do their jobs. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's worth my time to micromanage.

If I don't trust anyone, work off solely probability and how likely I think it is for an employee to do their job in this particular field. If I weigh up the pros and cons of taking any overseer action as opposed to not taking overseer action and I decide it's better to act in accordance with what I think will give me the best results and that happens to be only dealing with the problems employees cause reactively because proactively monitoring them is resources and time spent ineffectively. That I've acted like I trust them is only an interpretation, what I am really acting like is someone who is only concerned with pragmatism.

That's my take on it anyway.

My employees might do their jobs properly or might not, I don't know but I certainly don't trust them to do their jobs. — Judaka

So why did you (or whoever made the decision) hire them? I'm guessing you trust them to do a competent job most of the time - if not a perfect job all the time. If not why haven't they been fired? I think maybe your pragmatism is a rationalisation of trust, rather than a stand-in for it.

Does no trust mean that you always plan for the worst case scenarios as though they're the most likely? — Judaka

What's that old phrase? "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

'No trust' in what situation?..

Is it humanly possible to trust no-one? — Hypnos

I don't think this is possible without suicide being in the question. I have heard that this has been the cause of some suicides or one of the many causes of these certain suicides. Trust has to be defined because trust is one of the most subtle and complex concepts that affect everyone's lives.

If someone is betrayed, whether it be cheating, lying, turned in, subject to treachery, etc. there is the allure to not 'trusting' anyone as a part of the emotional reaction. But, in time, these people still trust themselves and still trust someone...

Maybe a good way to go about this is to have experience as the core of our questioning, then letting intuition and skepticism guide that questioning. Then risk becomes a matter of circumstance; whether we've had the right experiences or were born with the right traits that would help us survive in those situations...