A More REASON for DISTRUST

image

At times, I’ve shocked myself. There are those moments you sit and ask yourself “how could I have done this one?” That’s shock. You periodically and subconsciously do certain things you never thought you’d ever do. You wished you could be in those wet shoes of Robert Kelly agonizing through the road to turn back the hands of time. That in itself is an indication of how invaluable trust can be. It’s that expensive, at times, we cannot trust our own selves with overcoming certain desires and addictions. The worst act of STUPIDITY you can inflict upon yourself is to have ultimate trust in People in whatever form they may portray themselves to be. Not even your Best Friend or Blood. It’s a lesson learnt.

Now, here is the thorny truth about humans. Everything goes down to a Darwinian world of the Survival of the Fittest. As Beyoncé may put it, “all the people on the planet work 9 to 5 just to stay alive“. The basic fact, whether or not a human has a vision or aim is that, we live to survive. We all have a selfish trait in us to survive in various ways and that makes us generally weak when it comes to trust, simply because an inevitable time definitely approaches along the timeline when one is faced with the Golden decision; ME or THEM. That’s where the problem of trust lingers in.  One may argue; we  have people who died for others, thus the Jacks (from the story of the Titanic), the Romeos and Juliets (from old tales like that of William Shakespeare) and the most Perfect one in the eyes of any Christian, Jesus Christ (as told by the Bible). That is Perfect Truth, but that never says they did not die out of the love of themselves. To love someone strongly is a selfish desire, it actually is. They simply Loved and Died for their respective people because THEY wanted to. That’s the bottom line, a PERSONAL or SELFISH Interest.

Meanwhile, there are the unique situations one might jump on as a justification into why this post is a falacy or as Dr. Richard Amoako Baah may put it, a Counterfeit Logic. Some might assert; What of those who are forced to do certian stuff out of the fear of death threats or any other form of coercion? It goes down to the same thing. You are simply acting to prevent the consequences of a Threat because YOU’VE placed YOUR Interest above the situation in question. The only thing or person you can trust is the programmable robot, the one instilled with instructions to act solely upon those instructions; thus the robots and the machines. Those ones are not rational beings, they rather work in the selfish interest of whoever takes charge of manueverability, they act based on the needs of the manager of instructions. So maybe you can trust machines provided you are the sole operator behind it’s control panel. You can trust a machine provided it is working within your Selfish Interest. But take note though, that you can be shocked at yourself when you end up a little wiser or conscious. Trust is something else when you take into consideration the many details of human nature evolving around a brutish society. Until then, Trust NOBODY. Everyone is capable of anything at anytime. Provided you have this in mind, you will shield yourself from the many unnecessary hurts people bestow upon you on a day to day basis. You will not be shocked about the Inevitables of Life and Human Nature. Trust is a thing both rich and poor strive for but it’s the one thing one cannot be assured of within a society of humans.

image

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A More REASON for DISTRUST

  1. Loved it! Here is some food for thought though: Is trust hinged on certainty or on the hope of it? If the former, as you may have implicitly suggested, how can anyone be trusted?

    I loved the thinking here, it’s quite coherent. Is it in the same basket with Nihilism? If so, would chosing to use Ocam’s Razor instead made any difference. Both are logical choices. I guess what I wanted to say, borrowing one thinker’s words, is that all acts in themselves are indifferent, they are only qualified by the mindset of their architect. I’m just saying you took an unnecesarily bold tone on this one, Dan.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Will even the hope of it change the line of argument? I don’t think so. Maybe just maybe you are missing the point. It’s more about the motives behind acts we are speaking about and not necessarily the act. That actually goes with what I usually say, that it isn’t necessarily one’s worldview but how one attained worldview. We can scrutinize this thought experiment and hope to find out whether or not hope kills any form of personal interests. Does hope do so? Let’s take into consideration this analogy. It can be as compelling as the perceived thoughts of the religious:

      When a Christian does perceived good in the hope of something better, probably something beyond our natural world, does he/she not do so because of personal interests? When a Christian lives within inconvenient situations just to please the word of his/her supposed benevolent dictator, is that not an act to be on the same page of the God in question; that which comes with loads of perceived benefits as far as salvation is concerned? When a suicide bomber bombs himself out of his beliefs related to the controversy of what Jihadism truly means, why does he do so? Wow, it sounds good to taste 72 virgins at a point in time, I think.

      At the end of the day, who is to benefit from supposed salvation? Is that not the actor in question? That’s the same line of argument placed in here. Many actions might look like the contrary of selfishness till we employ some critical thoughts upon motives and the hope for a specific end result. We can use you as well since you are the one questioning questionings. That can’t be a bad thing, lol. Why did you comment on this one? Did you not want to or felt the need to? If you never wanted to, what pushed you to do so? At the end of the day, did you not settle with a personal decision on whether or not you should comment? That’s the point. To satisfy personal interests at points in time.

      You go for this one because the answer so long as the post is concerned will probably be that which will hurt and hurt and hurt I think. You ask; How can anyone be trusted if we follow this line of argument? Well, the question should be, “Can anyone be trusted with perfect certainty?” This post is hardly about what we hope for [wishful thinkings we aren’t certain about achieving] but rather, what happens out there [that which empiricism has satisfied], I think. An honest answer should present to us insights upon negative reactions.

      However, this never suggests there can never be any element of trust at points in time. Thus, trust is more like a spectrum of uncertainty where one cannot be certain at the end of trust’s favor. By the least, such hinges are based on what we know to be most of the motives shaping the supposed “altruistic” thoughts of perceived altruistic people. As my late Aunt usually said before she passed, “It is better to perceive people as bad than good. When you do so, you save yourself from all the hurts that might come from trust and then smile at thoughts proved right when the elements of distrust lurks in”. Thus, all this advocates for, is the notion that “it’s usually better to distrust than to trust because of man’s selfish nature”. It’s a post based on man’s selfish trait; that which he is more poised to deny because of the negative reactions attached to the term “selfish”. Why will he deny? That’s probably because of a personal interest to cause others to think “oh yes, this guy can be trusted, he isn’t selfish. Let’s trust and vote for him”. Be that as it may, mere denial of something never suggests it isn’t there.

      So that’s it. I’ve not read on nihilism, heard of the term a couple of times though from some freethinking friends. So honesty will urge me to say this; that I don’t know if this one is similar to nihilistic thoughts. However, this is less of labeling worldviews and more of putting an eye on motives [how one may attain a worldview or in this case, why one will embark on a self-sacrificing act].

      And finally, about whether my thoughts was bold than necessary, that is left for the end of the argument. How wrong I’m I? The ball is in your court.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You flooded the point in my question, Dan. All the same you did humor me on what the main point was.

        When I asked you if trust is hinged on certainty all I wanted to make you see is that the way you stretched your reason somewhat defeats all possibility of trusting to begin with. Here’s why:

        Trust has always hinged on the hope that the trusted would do right by the one who trusts. It’s simply because there can never be certainty in this case because the hope of the one who trusts is in another who may not act in phase with the trust should he chose. This is actually just as inherent as the challenge in trusting our own selves, anyway. The possibility of disappointment is what paints the world. Trust floats on this mechanics already so in a way your observation would be more like a description than a game changer.

        Another point I made, although for some reason you insisted it’s a misunderstanding of your main point, was why you didn’t use Ocam’s Razor in your argument. Ocean’s Razor would have made all the difference and it’s an established way of thinking. I asked this, of course, because of how you insisted that all acts boil down to selfishness or self truism.

        What I meant to establish there is that this may not be necessarily true. From my empirical understanding of humanity, I have seen acts which were absurdly selfless, but then that’s where your argument is. That all those observations may be analyzed to show that those acts were indeed selfish contrary to what may be apparent. That’s just fluidity of words on your part and a little overly stretched reasoning. Ocean’s Razor has been known to give some simplicity where warranted but you sidelined this because you were a man with a point to make.

        Just to sum this up, all actions may be shown to boil down to selfishness but that is not necessarily true.

        I commented for a far more noble reason, BTW(of course you can make it seem to boil down to self interest). Maybe if you can trust my motive, more so my word, then you could see that maybe, just maybe, you may have overstretched the reasoning on this one, Dan.

        Like

      2. Of course, my observation is more of a description on what is there than a game changer. Hmmm, I think that’s probably a superficial outlook in point in time, but let’s play along. Can you change the inalterable? The fundamental nature of “I” and “Me” of the human species? I doubt. In fact, that is another ingredient that makes us “human”, I think. There’s only the need to re-emphasize what people already are because they usually tend to portray in thoughts that the contrary is there due to the reactionary positions given to the mere concept of “selfishness”. Maybe just maybe, this argument would not have been necessary if we saw by default, selfishness as a spectrum which could be good or bad as well instead of inevitably utterly negative. Thus, because our values usually tag selfishness with the red ink, we tend to over-emphasize the negatives [just as you think I’ve over-stretched the reasoning] attached to that than the probable good reasons it attaches itself to as a defense mechanism etc. And I progressively think, that that’s a more reason poli-trickians are usually successful with winning vulnerable hearts clinging to HOPE by telling those good lies. Because the people cling to the hope that “oh, well yeah, she’s for us first before herself”. So in as much as this is an observation, it has got it’s “game changing” outfit on so long as such awareness sparks the consciousness that “man is more poised to be selfish and is more likely to choose himself over me, so I have little reason to believe he’ll do the contrary, so let me believe he is selfish (whether that has a good/bad end for my perspective) just to be on the safer side”. I think that’s the actual motive behind this post, thus to make more aware on how they’ve got it wrong on stretching hope; that which most clever tricksters like our reps of society (the poli-trickians) take gross advantage of. And I don’t deny my motive behind this is personal. I want to and that’s exactly why I do.

        Now, there’s another similar line of reasoning I have to make; that which might dress up the probably perceived flaws on a personal interest. Again, a personal interest does not necessarily guarantee the negative. When it is in my daddy’s personal interest to cater for me, personal in itself gives it the selfish outlook [that which can be bad or good depending on who’s standing at which point] but that is not only an act of selfishness on his part, but a personal act that tends to favor me. Thus, the focus is strongly on the point of everyone’s aim of achieving a personal interest/goal [whether or not that favors the person or another in question].

        To even state that you’ve seen certain “selfless acts” therefore not all acts are selfish [personal] truly means you’ve missed the point. You thought I flooded the point all over. Well, I did, yet you either failed to see or ignored the point I made relating to the decision making process. And I think, that exact point made you the subject matter. When one embarks on a “selfless act” does that one not have a choice in the first place? Does the one in question, not choose to embark on supposed “selfless interest” that which gives it a personal trait forming the basis of my line of argument? We can trust people at points in time, I mean, but not in a whole packages of absolute certainty because we are more poised to change positions depending upon context. This post is more precautionary than it is for advocating that we trust and trust and trust all because we cling to hope till that clever trickster takes advantage of that to suit selfish/personal interests.

        Herbert Uba, you probably know I’ve always loved you for your line of reasoning, but that never takes your personal traits out. Lol. We have more to discuss. Thanks for been there.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s