The paper was riddled, riddled with eloquent speech and upset feelings that meant nothing. Each letter of each word was like a void character, acting like guards to the thoughts that hid deep within the hypothetical “truths.” One may acknowledge that the prose was accurately written. The information seemed to conform to what was deemed acceptable in a society that was indefinable. Who was to say that such written words were true or false? However, who was to say that the truth was sincerely written? Is not the truth in sync with free thought? And if one can not freely think, then does he lie? Or is the inability to think freely a blessing to those who seek truth? To lie, one must decide to speak out of time. He must detach himself from his soul and recreate a facade that would fool an audience.
Can man speak truth? Some would say no. The truth is unachievable; thus, those who believe this philosophy do not strive to seek truth. According to my first definition of truth, wouldn’t it be so that they spoke truth? This makes truth hard to define. Though someone states one thing, he may not always speak truth. He may speak out of fear, anger, or sorrow. His thoughts are clouded by emotion, but his thoughts are still the same. If he were a criminal, how can I believe that he’ll stop living in his vice after he is caught by the law? I simply can’t, unless I trust him.
But is not trust the mere assumption of truth? An individual comes to terms with trust when he has observed what he perceives as truth. Truth in itself can be both true and false, yet trust is developed when the mind of another person willingly conforms his thoughts to another individual. But at the moment trust is conceived, does the willingness to think independent die? I would surely hope not; for with trust, breaks the barrier of insecurity. Yet does not trust build another wall?
When someone conforms to the ideas of another, does that person no longer view himself as an individual? Certainly, he can not think of himself as more than a man; yet, I am not convinced that he doesn’t. Religious people see themselves as part of a god in some sense; however, is it not true that the person is still and shall always be an individual? Yet is it not true that a person connects himself to others through the access to a mental plane where abstract thoughts somehow combine and merge to create a complexity that an individual must be exposed to within time? But does the connection to this mental plane come from the mere passive act of trusting someone else?
Though bridging thoughts may be impossible; truth and trust seems to be a means to connect oneself to the great mass of individuals that walk this world. Trust can only be found through communication, thought, and action. Without the three, you can not have trust. Thus without deducing that someone has done something trustworthy, you could not communicate your trust.
Heuristic Heckler Community Member 
|
|
