annoyedI find it fascinating how the arguments over the character of the various pretenders to the 2004 presidential elections have degraded into meta-arguments over the backlash of pursuing a strategy of questioning character. On one hand, past performance is not an indication of future returns. On the other, what else do we have to decide on?
Can we trust any documentation, when no document can ever present the truth? How can we exist as people, when the only reliable method is to understand things ab-initio, while we are ever incresingly forced by time constraints to base our judgements on the trust of others?
How do I establish a sound philosophical basis of trust, or is trust inevitably tied to faith?
I'm quickly coming to a nihilistic opinion of all text.
