Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Kowalik's avatar

Let ‘trust’ signify a conviction that ‘P is true’ held without a proof. To assert that ‘P is true’ without a proof implies that ‘P is true without a proof’, therefore anything can be true without a proof, therefore the negation of P can also be asserted as true without a proof, therefore contradiction. The absurdity of trust is amplified by not merely trusting (as an act of existential desperation associated with individual epistemic impotence) but by asserting the associated conviction as a truth that ‘ought’ to be trusted.

Expand full comment

No posts