Hi Anya,

When it comes to trusting people, especially today, I think we need to take people at face value. Who someone is will usually be laid out at your feet. You just need to look at the cues they’re sending. Of course, I do believe actions speak louder than words, but the two together create a whole picture. Too many people are saying exactly what they are and what they want, and people aren’t believing them. It’s time to start. We don’t need to wait for their actions when their words are saying plenty. 

Donna

For me, this becomes a complex question.  First of all, most of us really do not know what language means when elocuted but rather we enter a kind of Wittgenstein-like Language Game.  We really do not listen much to the words but rather we react with words in a playful way, sans thinking, to enter and be a part of the tribe or organization for the sake of belonging, and speaking a language only understandable to the group regardless of any interpretation.  In other words, language creates us more than we create language; it gives us life or at least some kind of motion for the sake of identity.  

A good example is if we think of what we are going to say, nothing comes forth, but if we just open our mouths it all happens; language takes over, controlling us rather than we controlling language.  Bottom line is that we rarely listen though we are controlled by language.  With the written language, it is a little different in that the speaker is absent creating other problems.

Now if someone gives words of wisdom, and we do listen and actually receive them, we cherish the meaning, but then we often enter a morality of sorts observing who the person is who said it and for what purpose.  Maybe it is for the sake of Truth, but then what is the value of truth and to whom?  This now goes beyond interpretation to cultural interpellation bringing forth categories that turn into classifications which turn into monumentalism of sorts, and monumental thinking always turns out to be lies.  So, if all this seems rather confusing, you are correct.  No one should listen to what or who the person is saying words but only to the words, as we only exist in the name of language: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Herman. H, San Francisco

I think that Seneca most likely had to make some difficult choices and political calculations that were less than ideal but to his mind, necessary; much as some recent politicians and media figures justified how they “shilled” for President Trump or Biden, claiming in many cases, they hoped by their mere proximity to minimize the damage these flawed leaders might do to the nation. Does this mean we are required to make such a binary choice as following (do you mean “trust”?) either a person’s words or their actions?

Let’s not forget, Seneca was forced to commit suicide. Who knows what the reelection of either Trump or Biden will mean for those with the fortitude and courage, as they will surely see it, to fall on the sword and in doing so, preserve the leader who represents the good as they see it. iustitia {suum cuique} distribuit    

Mark B. 

Children are quick to notice some adults instruct them to do what they say, especially when it is not what they do. That cognitive dissonance quickly evolves into a loss of trust. Elected officials often fall into a similar trap when they are co opted by special interest groups. It is the nature of fallen man to bear and practice false witness.

Words conflicting with deeds performed are soon forgotten. The latter is remembered forever. David was convicted by the words spoken before the prophet Nathan, who reminded him of his deeds. Deeds not words are the litmus test remembered. 

Charles F.

Anya,

Can you stuff one more thought into the discussion about collecting things?

It was a "bupersnicker" seen many years ago.  Anyone who is a quilter or related to one will understand.

"The one who dies with the most fabric WINS."

Fred in Detroit