投稿

RudimentⅣ

 At Ⅲ, one conclusion was done to us. Nevertheless, we individually could not be satisfied with that interpretation, because Ⅲ's it could be generalized truth and to it, still we could have questionable mind. That is to some extent like next. We usually contract someone, or some company or so, and that reason could be motivated by our own trust to the one or company. However, actually, after we'd contracted the one or company, occasionally necessarily we'd have next case. In contracted things, we accidentally have dubious thing around work, course of company and essentially instinctively presumable personal assessing to team members' working ideology and company's disposition. That our own mind's assessment is so personal, even if the first contracting one to us and company's actual running aspect, was so credibly seen to us, otherwise, prior to entering into the same project, the contracting President was close acquaintance or so, even with kin or family me
コメントを投稿
続きを読む

Rudiment Ⅲ

Very integrally basic issue is obviously trust makes us regard mutually very contradictory reality in which we see it as so private and so formally or officially as dutiful. Necessarily, in work, as the same team member, to one colleague, or work fellow, we usually easily to have both consciousness. Nevertheless, business, or working accompanying efficiency rating or so, necessarily rating responsible ones, the same team fellows or so and either rated one should have objective stance at regarding trust, that necessarily must be publicly just and appropriate regard. Paul Ricœur mentions in  Soi-même comme un autre  as next. "On the contrary just to contracting relevance of reasonable human relation and either merely over the subjective morality, according to he term signified at ethical text as  Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences , it must be defined as field of objective spirit. Citizen society as competitively interest relevant also could not output organic personality r
コメントを投稿
続きを読む

RudimentⅡ

◎Ultimately, which we should believe in contracted promise or person's credibility, eventually only the question to us is left. ◎If we believe in contract, no matter who the one contracts me is, that thing is not so important. Otherwise, if we believe in only person, no matter what kind of contract I did, that thing is not so important. However, the latter case is contradictory. ◎Eventually, only certain contract to us is just what we can trust not having distrust. And if we could judge only the truth is the correct, consequently only to the one who contracted us should be trusted to us. The thing consists in next truth. If the contract we'd believe in has been done to us, only the thing and the one who contracted with us or contracted us should be trusted by us. ◎And, necessarily, we should believe in only the one who could contract mutually the most. Because if the contract could be left to us, only the one who must believe in it should be trusted by us. Oct. 2nd    2021
コメントを投稿
続きを読む

Rudiment.Ⅰ

  ◎ Basically, to us, to anyone whose mind is unknown as much as myself except only "myself", only that fact must be left to us, personally. ◎ Only upper truth is the absolute consistent it. ◎ Any contract must be composed with the premise. ◎ Generally, trust could be only expedient. Nevertheless, the manner or attitude to which only it should not be regarded as trustworthy.   That applicable range has no condition except "myself". ◎ The most credible truth is, otherwise, should be what only contract should be preceded.     Though what neglects the truth must be assessed as fake. ◎ However, overwhelmingly precise duplicate in general is so convincing at least practically.    And that idea is at least in the term of social credibility, trustworthy. ◎ If upper matter could be set so convincingly, even trust could be seen so integral.    Never yet, that should not be neglected.    Just only it could be another dimensioned thing. ◎ Consequently,
コメントを投稿
続きを読む