Daily theory!

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

Rosebolt

Guest
Yo! In my opinion, the forum is getting boring, so i've been thinking of stuff to make it more fun!

I'll be trying to post a theory on here, to which you guys can comment on. These theories are just things that randomly pop up in my mind, and most of the time don't even reflect my own opinions.

To start of,

Trust is the absence is worry.
 
Maybe when dealing with mechanics, if something is properly constructed and/or programmed you trust it to function as it should, when you start up your computer you won't usually worry it's not going to start.
In relationships it's a little more complex I'd say, even if you trust someone there can still be worries (hopefully x or y won't happen to him/her) although by definition if you truly trust someone you're not worrying about specific things that would betray that trust.
So I guess if you mean that, your statement is correct.
 
boring.jpg


:D:D:D

Rosebolt said:
Yo! In my opinion, the forum is getting boring, so i've been thinking of stuff to make it more fun! ...
 
Rosebolt said:
Yo! In my opinion, the forum is getting boring

Hope new members aren't reading this.

New members: if you're reading, please don't leave, it's just one guys opinion!

PS; I have to disagree.
 
Rosebolt said:
Trust is the absence is worry.
Sigma said:
Maybe when dealing with mechanics, if something is properly constructed and/or programmed you trust it to function as it should, when you start up your computer you won't usually worry it's not going to start.
In relationships it's a little more complex I'd say, even if you trust someone there can still be worries (hopefully x or y won't happen to him/her) although by definition if you truly trust someone you're not worrying about specific things that would betray that trust.
So I guess if you mean that, your statement is correct.

Hmm, now that I can think better..... I see that Sigma already wrote a point I was thinking.

Can one really have absolute trust in something or someone though? I wonder.
 
ladyforsaken said:
Rosebolt said:
Trust is the absence is worry.
Sigma said:
Maybe when dealing with mechanics, if something is properly constructed and/or programmed you trust it to function as it should, when you start up your computer you won't usually worry it's not going to start.
In relationships it's a little more complex I'd say, even if you trust someone there can still be worries (hopefully x or y won't happen to him/her) although by definition if you truly trust someone you're not worrying about specific things that would betray that trust.
So I guess if you mean that, your statement is correct.

Hmm, now that I can think better..... I see that Sigma already wrote a point I was thinking.

Can one really have absolute trust in something or someone though? I wonder.

Assuming these concepts are quantifiable, if we look at Worry as a degree inversely proportional to the level of Trust, then having Absolute Trust means having an Absolute Absence of Worry.

However isn't it that Absolute Absence of Worry (meaning having no concern of consequences certain actions may result to), also correlates to Carelessness and/or Naivete? If so, is Absolute Trust the same as Carelessness/Naivete?

btw, I'm new here and I think this is good stuff :) I really pondered for awhile there
 
RonYells said:
Assuming these concepts are quantifiable, if we look at Worry as a degree inversely proportional to the level of Trust, then having Absolute Trust means having an Absolute Absence of Worry.

However isn't it that Absolute Absence of Worry (meaning having no concern of consequences certain actions may result to), also correlates to Carelessness and/or Naivete? If so, is Absolute Trust the same as Carelessness/Naivete?

btw, I'm new here and I think this is good stuff :) I really pondered for awhile there

One could argue that the bolded text is indeed true, and so is the inverted piece. Or could be. However, to be clear, an absolute trust in either a person or an object, does not in any way imply that the trusting being is free from any worry whatsoever; one is only free from any form of worry related to the trusted object.

Anyway, i am very glad someone appreciates my idea, i'll pull through with it then.

Oh, and a very warm welcome to the forum to you, looking forward to discussing with you more often.
 
Oh I see now. I disregarded the Trusted object in my equation. I assumed Worry to be Worry of one's own actions, not of Worry of other's, which is actually the case here. My bad.

If this is the case then I think Trust really just boils down to how much a person is comfortable with the possible unknowns. We worry about anything since we are afraid of what may come, the unexpected, the unknowable. To eliminate worry, one can either try to know the unknowable, be comfortable with not knowing, or simply base everything on Faith, or whichever belief system one adheres to. If so, then yes, I think Trust in others can be equated to the Absence of Worry.

Yes please, do continue this thread. Psuedo-philosophizing has always been a great mental exercise for me, regardless of the results (or non-results in most cases). I hope more people will want to participate here.

And hey, thanks. I'll do my best to keep myself open-minded :)
 
9006 said:
Rosebolt said:
Yo! In my opinion, the forum is getting boring

Hope new members aren't reading this.

New members: if you're reading, please don't leave, it's just one guys opinion!

PS; I have to disagree.

I agree with this disagreement. By agreeing to disagree with the "boring" assertion we've in effect agreed to nullify and make void the disagreeable opinion stated- agree?
 
WildernessWildChild said:
I agree with this disagreement. By agreeing to disagree with the "boring" assertion we've in effect agreed to nullify and make void the disagreeable opinion stated- agree?

When decyphered: "That's not true because I say so"
 
Isn't trust the absence of doubt as opposed to the absence of worry? Not that one is entirely reliant on the non-existence of the other.
 
Scotsman said:
Isn't trust the absence of doubt as opposed to the absence of worry? Not that one is entirely reliant on the non-existence of the other.

Could be. One could indeed say that doubt springs from worry, and worry from general insecurity. If we go along that both, that could mean that fully absolute trust is not possible when the trusting object is insecure of any magnitude.

That is something i do not agree with.


Anyway, it's a day later again, time for a new one.

All animals have an ability to reason, they just differ from the human kind.
 
Animals can reason in certain contexts, to a certain extent. When lions hunt prey for example they can often single out the weaker of a group, this must require some level of reason.
 
Scotsman said:
Animals can reason in certain contexts, to a certain extent. When lions hunt prey for example they can often single out the weaker of a group, this must require some level of reason.

I fail to see how this relates to Rosebolt's point. Am I missing something? Can someone enlighten me?
 
I misread his initial point.


And given we've both said essentially the same thing, as I now see having read his point again, then they relate entirely. Where I went wrong was arguing a point he'd already made.
 
Scotsman said:
... Where I went wrong was arguing a point he'd already made.

I thought you were trying to confirm the first part of his theory.
 
Scotsman said:
I misread his initial point.


And given we've both said essentially the same thing, as I now see having read his point again, then they relate entirely. Where I went wrong was arguing a point he'd already made.



Sorry, it was I who misread. I didn't realize that a second theory was already posted. I thought you were still replying about op's first theory, thus the confusion on my part. I really did miss something.

Yeah my reply really does look like being a pretentious psuedo-intellectual prick :(
 
RonYells said:
Scotsman said:
I misread his initial point.


And given we've both said essentially the same thing, as I now see having read his point again, then they relate entirely. Where I went wrong was arguing a point he'd already made.



Sorry, it was I who misread. I didn't realize that a second theory was already posted. I thought you were still replying about op's first theory, thus the confusion on my part. I really did miss something.

Yeah my reply really does look like being a pretentious psuedo-intellectual prick :(



No problem my friend. We both missed something. No pretentiousness there.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top