Who Do You Trust?
by Beezone
“Belief is the Offering; Trust is in the Exchange.”
Introduction
While revisiting Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man, I found myself wrestling with a curious question—one that touches on how we approach truth and authority in both the past and present. In the second paragraph of the Oration, Pico refers to “David’s testimony.” But who is this David, really? Is it King David, as one might assume, or is it more of a nod to the Psalms, using David’s name to lend weight and authority to the text?
As it turns out, it’s not literally King David speaking. Instead, it’s a symbolic connection to the Psalms—a tradition where David is associated with authorship to add credibility and authority. This kind of attribution, however, raises a deeper concern:
How much of the wisdom we take at face value from historical or foundational texts is built on similar linguistic shortcuts? What other “truths” have we absorbed unquestioningly, simply because they’ve been dressed up with authoritative names or poetic associations? Did King David really proclaim that human intelligence reigns supreme? Not at all. The connection here is more about creating an false notion more than adhering to the literal truth.
This realization opened up a larger, more intriguing question for me: How often do religious and philosophical traditions use this kind of hyperbolic language to emphasize meaning over literal accuracy? And how does this shape the way we trust the wisdom we inherit? It’s a sobering thought—recognizing that even the most celebrated works of wisdom and authority may lean more on rhetorical flourish than factual foundation. Perhaps it’s time we approach such texts with a keener eye and a willingness to question what we’ve long accepted as truth.
The Seduction
Throughout history, philosophical and religious discourse has relied on the alignment with “revered sources” to legitimize ideas. Figures like Socrates, Plato, Jesus, King David, and Aristotle have been invoked not merely for their wisdom but for the symbolic authority their names carry. In such instances, alignment becomes a form of borrowed credibility: a rhetorical strategy that elevates an argument by attaching it to a figure or institution already imbued with cultural weight.
Consider Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man. Pico invokes King David as the voice of divine truth, referencing a Psalm to assert the supreme intelligence and dignity of humanity. Yet, upon scrutiny, we find that “David’s testimony” is less a historical fact and more a poetic construct. King David himself did not literally proclaim human intelligence as supreme; this is an interpretive leap made to bolster Pico’s argument. Here, the invocation serves a purpose: to elevate the text’s moral and intellectual resonance. But it also exemplifies how easily rhetorical flourish can blur the boundary between poetic truth and factual accuracy.
This stretching of truth—intentional or unconscious—is not confined to ancient texts. It persists in modern intellectual discourse, where quotes and ideas are often cherry-picked, misattributed, or decontextualized to lend gravitas to an argument. When Nietzsche is reduced to “God is dead” or Einstein is invoked in vague affirmations of creativity, their complex ideas are flattened into soundbites that serve rhetorical convenience over genuine understanding.
The Illusion
This same dynamic operates in the “lower” forms of cultural expression: music, movies, and sports. Here, the alignment with icons becomes less about intellectual legitimacy and more about emotional resonance. A politician plays a Bruce Springsteen song at a rally to signal solidarity with the working class, even if the lyrics critique the very systems they uphold. A motivational speaker invokes Kobe Bryant’s “Mamba Mentality” to inspire discipline, glossing over the unique contexts that shaped his philosophy. A brand partners with a cultural figure like Beyoncé to evoke empowerment, even if the association is purely transactional.
The illusion of virtue in these cases is both more immediate and more insidious. Pop culture figures are modern-day myths, embodying ideals of rebellion, perseverance, or authenticity. Aligning with them taps into a deep well of cultural emotion, bypassing critical scrutiny. Yet, as with historical and philosophical figures, the alignment often simplifies or distorts the truth. The complexities and contradictions of these figures—their humanity—are smoothed over in favor of a one-dimensional symbol that serves the desired narrative.
Context-Dependent
A key issue in both high and low forms of alignment is the context-dependent nature of truth. What is “true” in one context may be irrelevant or even misleading in another. A statement attributed to King David or a lesson drawn from Kobe Bryant might hold symbolic power but falter when applied indiscriminately. This problem is compounded when references are vague, misquoted, or taken out of context, creating what can only be described as an unconscious lie: an assertion that feels true but lacks the rigor to stand up to scrutiny.
In both philosophical and popular discourse, this lack of precision erodes trust. It becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between genuine insight and rhetorical manipulation. The audience, seduced by the emotional or intellectual weight of the reference, may accept the illusion without questioning its validity. Meanwhile, the speaker—whether intentionally or not—reinforces a shallow understanding that obscures deeper truths.
Trust and the Need
To navigate this landscape, we must develop a critical awareness of how trust is constructed and where it is misplaced. This involves asking pointed questions:
-
What is the source? Is the referenced figure or institution genuinely aligned with the claim being made, or is their authority being borrowed without justification?
-
What is the context? Does the reference hold up when examined in its original setting, or has it been decontextualized to serve a new narrative?
-
What is the intent? Is the alignment being used to illuminate an idea, or is it a rhetorical shortcut to evoke unearned credibility?
True trust requires more than the invocation of greatness; it demands transparency, rigor, and humility. It requires acknowledging the complexities of the figures we revere, the limitations of their wisdom, and the ways in which their truths may or may not apply to our current circumstances.
Credibility
Ultimately, the question “Who do you trust?” invites us to move beyond borrowed credibility and toward a deeper engagement with truth. This means embracing the messy, nuanced reality of human thought and culture. King David was not a philosopher, and Kobe Bryant was not a theologian, but their words and actions can inspire when approached with discernment. The same is true of Socrates, Einstein, or Beyoncé. Their value lies not in the illusions we project onto them but in the genuine insights they offer when their contexts and complexities are fully understood.
However, this discernment comes with responsibility. To truly understand the figures or ideas we align with, we must make the effort to seek the truth—to verify sources, explore context, and critically evaluate intent. Without this effort, we risk perpetuating illusions and distorting the very truths we aim to uphold.
In popular culture, particularly with music, movies, and sports, it is equally important to approach alignment with a sense of playfulness and lightness. These associations are often symbolic games, not immutable truths. They are ways of expressing identity, emotion, and shared experience, but they should never be mistaken for ultimate reality. To fight over them, or to elevate them to the level of unquestionable truth, is to misunderstand their purpose. By keeping these alignments loose and playful, we can appreciate their emotional and cultural value without falling into the trap of mistaking them for something they are not.
Responsibility
In a world saturated with claims to authority, discernment is not just a skill; it is a responsibility. By asking “Who do you trust?” we open the door to a more honest, thoughtful, and transformative engagement with the ideas and figures that shape our lives. Trust requires effort and accountability. It also requires the wisdom to recognize that not all alignments are meant to be taken seriously. Whether invoking King David or quoting LeBron James, we must balance reverence with critical thinking, understanding that truth often lies beyond the illusions we create.