Do you agree that you own nothing and trust is an illusion?

I ask: Do you own your car? He said: The typical answer will be yes.
I ask: How do you own it? He said: I signed a piece of paper/ Somebody gave it to me.

Now people think about this for a second. All that is in reality is ink paper. Beyond that owership is an illusion. As disturbing as this sounds we own nothing. You don't own your children, husband, wife, car, house or anything else.

Wat's really happening is that you are using them. You can use your car. You can use your wife or husband. But in true reality you can never own anything.

So what is ownership? It's a system that keeps groups stabilized. Even without a group we use the sense of owership because we form attachments to objects. Again ownership isn't some magical force. It's a useful system of control that helps and/or corrupts groups and individuals.


Trust is an illusion as well. Unless you can mind read a lover you can never truly trust them. Based off calculated data you can predict probabilities. Even then there is always a chance things can go wrong.

So what does all this mean? Simple really, Trust and owership are illusions which give us false beliefs about human to human bonding.

So your girlfriend cheated on you? Well you already know now that trust is an illusion and that there is no true ownership. Cheating should be expected no matter how well you think a reationship is.


Most Helpful Girl

  • Talk about being pessimistic. I think you're looking a little too deeply into the true meanings of those two concepts. I don't see how you can 'use' your husband/wife in terms of the true semantic basis of the word 'use'. They're people, not objects, so you can't literally own them in order to use them like you would use a hairbrush or a spoon. That's if you're not taking ADVANTAGE of them as a person.

    There is no possible way to read minds, therefore the only way we can trust is to take people's word for things and judge their actions.

    • Humans are a form of object. Life and death are illusions much like consciousness. We remove the illusions you'll end up with a lump of flesh which is made of atoms no different than chairs atoms. Major difference is the atoms structure. What you define as a human is merely atoms arranged in such a way it allows for more illusions like freewill and consciousness.

      So humans can be a form of object.

Most Helpful Guy

  • I agree that there are certain things you cannot own but by definition I don't really see how you can say that a person can't own a care
    Own: have (something) as one's own; possess.

    So are you suggesting that I do not possess my car? I don't possess my cloths?

    • I'm questioning what it means to truly own something. There is no magical force connecting me to a car, a written proof is just ink on paper. So I question what is ownership. Does it exist or is it an illusion we humans created?

    • the word own is a verb as it applies to possession. so it's not really a state of mind or a theory but an action. In that sense it's rather concrete. I possess (or own) my car because I purchased and by law that means I am the only person who can claim it as theirs. so items in my opinion are able to be possessed

      now a person or something intangible or a different story. I cannot own a person in the truest sense because there is nowhere will suggest that a person is my property

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!

What Guys Said 2

  • Ownership is an agreement wherein a specific person has the final authority regarding the use or fate of a specific piece of property. The paper is a record of this agreement, created only to be able to prove the existence of the agreement to people who didn't witness it; the record itself is not the agreement.

    Trust is more than a probability assessment. It is also part of an agreement. Past behavior is certainly a factor in predicting outcome, but people do not act purely behavioristically.

  • By that logic, what is the law?