Fear & Trust: Le systeme c'est l'autre

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

We are, so we fear.

We are not born fearful. But we are born, so we are a product of the system. Your first cry, your first breath, you are a product. The system made you. Your parents choose to have a child. The system made you. Your parents didn’t choose to have a child. The system made you. Why are you alive? The system. Even going against the system is an idea created by the system to make you believe you are not part of the system. But you are. So you fear. So we fear. Why does the system create fear? Fear is a tool. Fear is a weapon. Fear is an emotion. Fear is an idea. Fear is primal they say, within our nature, they say, but what is our nature? Who defines our nature? Scientists? Researchers? Therapist? A child is not fearful until being taught fear. So they fear. So fear is an idea. It is taught. You learn, then you fear. Or do you learn because you fear?

If fear is an idea it then has an opposite. Philosophers, psychologists et all, indicate that one of the opposite of fear is faith. Faith is defined as complete trust, confidence, or firm belief in a person, thing, or higher power, often without needing absolute physical proof. It is then a direct synonym to trust. Trust. A term generally opposed to fear, or paranoia in extreme cases. But why do we trust? I firmly believe trust is not the opposite of fear. I believe trust is a product of fear. If there is no fear, there is no trust. Trust is a concept. A concept created by the system.

The system needs contrast, if life is in a singular colour, everyone would be the same. And they don’t want that. Paradoxically, we have often heard of people getting discriminated against because of their differences. Then wouldn’t that imply that the system dislikes different people? Wouldn’t that imply that the system wants everyone to be the same. No. The system is rooted in people’s differences. Every belief, rule, power dynamic, or aspect of the system is built on people’s differences. But they know we need contrast. So they let us believe that they are against us being different. But why? Because we are active, and the worst thing that could happen to a system is it being inactive. So by letting us revolt against them, we are actively fueling the system. If we fight them, it is because we fear them. We fear being repressed, we fear being physically harmed, we fear being controlled, we fear being alone. Fear drives all of our actions.

Coming back to trust. Trust isn’t palpable, it’s not measurable in someone else. Trust is like trying to seize water. You can see it, you can feel it, but there isn’t anything left for us to seize. Trust is a product of fear. If we didn’t trust we would only fear. But they cannot be opposite as you can have both. Currently you trust, but you always fear. Consciously you feel safe. Truly you are never safe. Trust is an ideology created by the system to control us. We trust our friends, we trust our families, we even trust strangers in the street. But why? What makes you so sure that the old man sitting next to you on the bus won’t pull out a knife and stab you? Nothing right? Concretely nothing. All you have to reassure yourself is the convictions that people who kill are different, they are weird, they are deranged. But what makes you think that old man next to you isn’t? So you trust. Paranoia is what’s left of the equation when you remove trust. And we are taught that paranoid people are different, they are weird, they are deranged. The system wants you to trust the old man on the bus. So they portray the killer on the TV like an irrational being. They teach you moral values through education, religion, and emotions. They engrave in your brain a fixed moral compass. You don’t trust bad. Bad is scary. But you trust good. Because it isn’t bad. The point is, you cannot trust anybody. Whatever your convictions are about trust they are wrong. Your mom, your dad, your sibling, your friend that you tell everything to. You cannot trust them. There is no such thing as trust. Everybody you trust is just someone you don’t fear. But you won’t believe me. Because who am I? You don’t know me. You don’t trust me. So you don’t listen. But why? Because I’m going against your beliefs, but they aren’t YOUR beliefs, they are only a reflection of what the system teaches you. You adhere without questioning so you convince yourself that you believe in what you’re taught. So me telling you what you believe is false, feels like a personal attack. And your reaction to attack is fear, so you don’t trust me. Yet you trust your teacher, you trust your friend with all of your secrets and ideas, you say they might’ve proven to be trustworthy, but truly you don’t have a choice. Because you coexist with them, so you are forced to trust them, even if you don’t think you do. But you don’t know me and you can’t fear me.

So what are we supposed to do? Always fear? No. Always trust? No. Fear and trust aren’t real. It is not because you think you feel them that they exist. They are ideologies that are so rooted within us that it seems inconceivable to not believe them real. If you are still reading this, and you still don’t believe me, then you are still a product of the system. And if you are still reading this and believe me then you are still a product of the system. What makes you think you can trust me?

We are we and the system is the Other, capital o.

1 Like
2

Thanks.

Thats very elegant.

I often read Epicurus. In his principal doctrines he reminds us that we need very little to be happy and when that when we have the little we need to be happy there is no cause for fear.

2 Likes
3

Welcome to the forum!

What is “the system”?

4

Yes, lets get straight down to the ontologies :slight_smile:

5

:joy: Or at least the glossary!

6

yokzem = a placeholder that means anything and functionally works similarly to a mathematical variable.

What if I neither believe or not believe you? I’m a yokzem. The catch 22.

7

Here, “the system” does not refer to a specific group of people currently “in charge” its more of a construct. It means the basic social structure that exists in all cultures. It is the way humans have organized themselves throughout history. Over time, this “system” has been developed and rules/ideologies have become deeply rooted, so there is no need for anyone to actively “enforce” them litteraly anymore, they have simply become part of how society works. Society continues to evolve, and the structure of each culture can be different. But when I mention “the system,” I am talking about the underlying pattern that shapes our behavior, often without us realizing we are following internalized rules. I use the word “system” because it helps visualize how different elements or ideas work together to influence our actions and decisions. I am new to philosophy so i may not always be using the most appropriate ontology :upside_down_face:

1 Like
8

Fair point, but wouldn’t choosing not to choose (or suspending judgment) still be a reaction to the statement? If the system dictates how we engage with information, then being indifferent or neutral is just another expected outcome. It gives us a sense of free will to feel like we’re picking an Option C, but it’s still a predicted choice. It kind of acts as a way to protect our own sense of agency while keeping things predictable so the system isn’t disturbed.

9

You keep working off of established premises/axioms. Imagination has none, it all starts with you. Under a multiverse model where multiple earths exist, I can transform fear into joy on earth 1 and joy into fear on earth 2. Your ego and physicality would accept these truths because there programmed to do so. It is only when you take the reigns and learn to control your destiny that you’ll find that there are more possibilities than you can ever imagine.

If not? Well there’s always earth 3. It’s a no magic earth where fear reigns unchecked. Quite fun if you’re into predatorial realities actually bent on destructive or decoherence. Sucks thou if you’re just another square or lamb waiting to be slaughtered unless you’re into the whole masochist movement. Your poetry would work well on earth 3 in my opinion.

The great gazoo has spoken. (sorry I’m drunk right now)

10

Are you kidding? Put three philosophers in a room and they’ll come out with four “appropriate ontologies”! :slightly_smiling_face: Not to worry.

OK, I have a better sense of what you mean by the system. I think you’re right that “the structure of each culture can be different,” though, so I wonder whether they do share the same “system.” Maybe what they share is the ability to shape behavior through internalized rules, while the rules themselves might vary in different times and places?

11

I think this concept of “system” is of primary importance. I think we find it in Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Hegel, and many others. We might speak of a “communal unconscious” which is enacted. The “Anyone” is communal habit. “Everybody knows” X, but no one remembers what X means. So people handwave when asked for details. Philosophers have been conceived along with artists as “breaking the crust of convention.” Someone has to dance a new dance, which is almost always offensive, an imposition of novelty on comforting routine.

12

My pushback here is that we are both already deeply in the system of English. You depend on the system. You are one part of the system critiquing another part, and so am I.

Gadamer is great on this. I don’t see us dealing with “appearance versus reality” but instead “yesterday’s way” versus “today’s way.” I might call my shiny new belief “true” and my cast away belief “false.” But to me there’s nothing deep in the “true/false” language. What matters is that my body moves differently in the world. I make different noises and marks. I react to people differently. I am still a system of habits, but a few of those habits have been modified.

If I go North, I don’t-go South. Trust and Fear are a bit like this. I can say that everyone I fear is someone I don’t trust. I can define the situation (in a low cost way ) with a single bit. To me it doesn’t matter if we choose “trust” or “fear” as our fundamental term. I could argue that “fear doesn’t exist” because “fear is really just the negation of trust.” So for me this is a weak moment in the OP. But I do overall like the theme, so please don’t take offense.

This system is part of nature. It develops like an organism. Do you really believe that people don’t learn to detect anomolies in order to avoid danger ? I have been watching true crime docs lately. I know that people sometimes miss danger, “misplace” trust. But people also sometimes eat something poisonous, because it smells good, tastes good. Why should natural detection mechanisms be perfect ? They only have to statistically outperform rivals. Our own DNA is riddled with bugs. It is “shit code,” and we die ( so one theory goes ) because of bugs that are less rigidly filtered because these bugs don’t do their major damage until after the organism has reproduced. I see paranoia as a behavioral analog of allergies. Too much caution — too much fear — is hobbling. I can die because I fail to make a good bet.

The old man is “unconsciously” registered as a threat or not. I mean that I think most of this kind of decision making is subconscious, though our attention may be summoned by a vague sense of not-right-ness.

I don’t see us as “otherwise angels” who are distorted by the system. The system rather “mirrors” the frailties of our flesh. We are not a big human family but genetic rivals. People are not, historically speaking, automatically my friends. This is a nice ideology for urban centers in the belly of complacent empires. It doesn’t make sense for pioneers on the Oregon trail. One of my wife’s ancestors were caught up in a famous massacre. Obviously her ancestor was one of the few survivors.