• Hypnos
    12
    Is skepticism about doubting everyone and everything?
    Was it Hume who said human have a natural tendency to believe everyone, but should not believe anyone.
    Is it humanly possible to trust no-one?

  • tim wood
    1.8k
    Is it humanly possible to trust no-one?Hypnos

    Try telling us what you suppose trust is?
  • Hypnos
    12
    Well very basically I mean here that you would follow someone else's direction/advice without questioning it, "trusting" that it's good.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    Is skepticism about doubting everyone and everything?Hypnos

    No.
  • xyz-zyx
    15
    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.
  • hachit
    94
    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.
  • TheMadFoolAccepted Answer
    2.9k
    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.
  • Hypnos
    12
    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?
  • TheMadFool
    2.9k
    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.
  • RosettaStoned
    23
    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.
  • Tim3003
    43
    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.
  • TheMadFool
    2.9k
    The only way it is possbile to live without trusting anyone is to become totally self-sufficientTim3003

    Could you trust yourself?
  • Hypnos
    12
    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.
  • Tim3003
    43
    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
    43
    ↪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.
  • Judaka
    93
    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.
  • Tim3003
    43
    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?
  • Christoffer
    371
    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?
  • Hypnos
    12
    Man I just wanted to know whether it was Hume who said it
  • Judaka
    93

    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.
  • Tim3003
    43
    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.
  • JohnHermes
    8
    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
  • Judaka
    93

    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.
  • Tim3003
    43
    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?..
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.