Who should we trust? Why should we even trust? What is trust? Though simple as it is spelled, grasping its real essence is like diving in a pool of fire. One may bother giving me its dictionary meaning, but I do not think the totality of such a vague word can be encapsulated by it. To try putting a point, one of the internet dictionary would define Trust as the firm reliance on something's capabilities. Up to what rating should your firm reliance ponder on? At the very least, it would be rational enough to believe that having a higher standard than yourself can be used as something to base our reliance on. However, would it also be safe to say that those whose standards which equals, or even lesser, when compared to your own status be ample enough to be given that firm reliance? Assuming finding the object of our firm reliance be easier, to what extent is reliance accountable for? Summing it up, their is more than "firm reliance" and "something's capabilities" that makes up trust. Taking the two phrases even begs to be clearly understood alike the word it tries to give essence to.
I am not so much in finding a right way to define trust. I would think that doing such asks too much a task for me and that I am not the right person to take on such issue. However, I am to analyze trust as an action of man. Be reminded that definition is not the only important part in determining essence. Why does man give trust? Layman would suggest that this is our way of trying to pay for the magnanimity of excellence portrayed by the object. It would be likely that trust is an award which is given to someone that has reached the standards that one has. However, man is a dynamic being. His rationality makes him a changing being. As man applies his critical and analytic thinking on the world, he is vulnerable enough to be swayed constantly. The man to whom you have applied your standard could give a different output when assessed for another period. I am not to say that they always do change. However, how can we be assured that they did not change? A such, trust is only good for that certain period it has been assessed. Trust cannot be carried on to the future because of the uncertainty of its basis.
Trying to put trust to exist even after the assessment is not granting an award but rather a burden. It tries to dictate the object of trust to maintain in himself a personality that has agreed with the standard given by the person assessing. It also serves as something to take hold of another person. When you are told to be someone who is given trust, you are expected to stand at the back of that person and be taken blame if you do not. Trust is a curse hidden behind the positive view of the populace.
Why should we invest too much on trust? Why should we even care if people give us trust? The only important thing in doing an act is giving all your best to succeed and not beg to be given that trust. Trust is nothing more than an ornament and does not play a role in the order of things. One could exist not having such. I would better be a man who acts than a man who is trusted.
I am not so much in finding a right way to define trust. I would think that doing such asks too much a task for me and that I am not the right person to take on such issue. However, I am to analyze trust as an action of man. Be reminded that definition is not the only important part in determining essence. Why does man give trust? Layman would suggest that this is our way of trying to pay for the magnanimity of excellence portrayed by the object. It would be likely that trust is an award which is given to someone that has reached the standards that one has. However, man is a dynamic being. His rationality makes him a changing being. As man applies his critical and analytic thinking on the world, he is vulnerable enough to be swayed constantly. The man to whom you have applied your standard could give a different output when assessed for another period. I am not to say that they always do change. However, how can we be assured that they did not change? A such, trust is only good for that certain period it has been assessed. Trust cannot be carried on to the future because of the uncertainty of its basis.
Trying to put trust to exist even after the assessment is not granting an award but rather a burden. It tries to dictate the object of trust to maintain in himself a personality that has agreed with the standard given by the person assessing. It also serves as something to take hold of another person. When you are told to be someone who is given trust, you are expected to stand at the back of that person and be taken blame if you do not. Trust is a curse hidden behind the positive view of the populace.
Why should we invest too much on trust? Why should we even care if people give us trust? The only important thing in doing an act is giving all your best to succeed and not beg to be given that trust. Trust is nothing more than an ornament and does not play a role in the order of things. One could exist not having such. I would better be a man who acts than a man who is trusted.
