Existence is the default status of things.

Sounds like you could use one of these:

You won't get agreement on that !

Heidegger's influential view on "existence" is that it only applies to a contemplative state of human consciousness ( Dasein ) in which it evokes "things". No "thingers" no "things".

And in any case "default status" is meaningless because "status" is always relative to something else.



That "cessation of the universe" is perhaps only meaningful in the mind's eye of an extant human observer, employing the concept of "end".

Well, if you do not concur with me that existence is the default status of things, then tell me what is your default status of things?

"Things" are "thinged" by species specific observers (living systems) according to their needs. They have no "existence" in their own right unless you are a philosophical "naive realist". If you want to think of the universe(s) as dynamic undifferentiated "stuff" (i.e neither "matter" nor "energy" already thinged by humans) then that transcendent view is about as close as you will get to a concept of "default status". Note that the modern thinging of what we call "the universe" is by no means well established. All we have are shifting paradigms of functional agreement.(Kuhn). For example, concepts like "dark matter", "dark energy", and "non-locality" have only recently come to the fore, and quests for a ToE (theory of everything) remain in the realm of conjecture.

Do you notice, dear readers here, that no one poster has given me and you readers what is their default status of things.

Okay, everyone, please think on facts and reason, no going anywhere elsewhere, stick to your idea in brief words what is for you the default status of things?

For me it is existence: existence is the default status of things.


Dear readers here, take notice how my respondents will answer, as usual they will not give forth in brief words their idea of their default status of things.

That means they will not do any thinking of their own on facts and reason, to come up with their own idea exactly, what for them by their own thinking and directing themselves unwaveringly to the question, what is for you the default status of things?

For me it is existence, existence is the default status of things.

That is what I find in almost all who write in the internet, they seem to write in reaction to a question, not what the question is about, but what they have in mind even though it is not in direct connection to the question at all.

Why do they behave that way? Because it is the easiest thing to do, to do otherwise by thinking on facts and reason and being linked up truly to the question, that is too much work and besides it is alien territory to them.

And they feel that they are doing writing, but to what direction and purpose, when I am asking them a precise definite clear concise question in simple words?

So, take notice readers, how my respondents will answer my question to them, what is for you the default status of things, for me it is existence, existence is the default status of things.

If you find it difficult to think, then just tell me you will take it from me, and ask me what is my point.

I am sorry, the message is addressed to all.

Do you notice, dear readers here, that no one poster has given me and you readers what is their default status of things.

Okay, everyone, please think on facts and reason, no going anywhere elsewhere, stick to your idea in brief words what is for you the default status of things?

For me it is existence: existence is the default status of things.


Dear readers here, take notice how my respondents will answer, as usual they will not give forth in brief words their idea of their default status of things.

That means they will not do any thinking of their own on facts and reason, to come up with their own idea exactly, what for them by their own thinking and directing themselves unwaveringly to the question, what is for you the default status of things?

For me it is existence, existence is the default status of things.

That is what I find in almost all who write in the internet, they seem to write in reaction to a question, not what the question is about, but what they have in mind even though it is not in direct connection to the question at all.

Why do they behave that way? Because it is the easiest thing to do, to do otherwise by thinking on facts and reason and being linked up truly to the question, that is too much work and besides it is alien territory to them.

And they feel that they are doing writing, but to what direction and purpose, when I am asking them a precise definite clear concise question in simple words?

So, take notice readers, how my respondents will answer my question to them, what is for you the default status of things, for me it is existence, existence is the default status of things.

If you find it difficult to think, then just tell me you will take it from me, and ask me what is my point.

Please go to my new thread, Oh atheists, teach me there is no God and I will be free.

Dear colleagues here, please consider this thread from me started way back on Sun 29 Mar, 2015 12:39 pm, see the OP in Annex below.

You see, dear readers here, the generality of posters do not do any personal thinking of their own, they would rather talk about things from other thinkers, and they do that in what I call in the mode of the third person impersonal anonymity approach.

That is the evidence of the kind of emptiness in their own heart and mind.

So, that should get you guys here feeling all hostile toward me; but please focus on my thoughts in the Annex below, and react to them, instead of getting all riled up with animosity toward me.

I love to read your reactions to my thoughts, instead of you reacting with your psychology of personal antagonism toward me, becauise I say from my very own personal observation on the generality of posters, namely:

Okay, readers here, let us all sit back and await to read with bated breath the reactions of posters here to my post here.

Will they react on the basis of rationality on my thoughts, or on the basis of their psychology of antagonism against me, because I tell them that they don't do any thinking from their very own mental resources, but always from the third person impersonal anonymity approach, by which they are safe from the fears they are plagued with, of committing some embarrassing faux pas,* owing to speaking from their honest and sincere heart and mind, of their own very personal thinking.

Annex

*Google: faux pas

About 11,000,000 results (0.44 seconds)
Search Results
Dictionary from google

faux pas
ˌfō ˈpä/
noun
noun: faux pas; plural noun: faux pas
1. an embarrassing or tactless act or remark in a social situation.
synonyms: mistake, blunder, gaffe, indiscretion, impropriety, solecism, barbarism; More
informalboo-boo, blooper
"excuse my faux pas"
Origin

late 17th century: French, literally ‘false step.’
Translate faux pas to
Translations, word origin, and more definitions
Feedback

Faux Pas | Definition of Faux Pas by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faux%20pas
Define faux pas: an embarrassing social mistake — faux pas in a sentence.

Faux pas | Define Faux pas at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/faux-pas
Faux pas definition, a slip or blunder in etiquette, manners, or conduct; an embarrassing social blunder or indiscretion. See more.

Urban Dictionary: faux pas
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faux%20pas
French for "False Step." A severe social blunder or major breach in etiquette. If the faux pas in question was unintentional it oftens leads to a v...

Faux pas - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_pas
Please search for Faux pas in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. You may want to read Wiktionary's entry on "faux pas" instead. Start the Faux ...

faux pas Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/faux-pas
faux pas definition, meaning, what is faux pas: words or behaviour that are a social mistake or not polite: . Learn more.

faux pas - Wiktionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faux_pas
English[edit]. Etymology[edit]. Borrowing from French faux pas (“faux pas, blunder; misstep, false step”), from faux (“false, wrong”) and pas (“step”).

faux pas - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/faux+pas
Faux pas literally means "false step" in French, and that's a great description of what you do when you make a faux pas. It's a matter of stepping in the wrong ...

faux pas - definition of faux pas in English | Oxford Dictionaries
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faux_pas
an embarrassing or tactless act or remark in a social sit... Meaning, pronunciation, example sentences, and more from Oxford Dictionaries.

Faux pas Synonyms, Faux pas Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
www.thesaurus.com/browse/faux%20pas
Synonyms for faux pas at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. Dictionary and Word of the Day.

faux-pas noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes ...
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/faux-pas
an action or a remark that causes embarrassment because it is not socially correct I committed a faux pas that my friends have never let me forget.

Searches related to faux pas
faux pas translation
faux pas in a sentence
faux pas pronunciation
faux pas plural
faux pas synonym
faux pas antonym
faux pas define
faux pas origin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

bookmark

Dear Fresco, no need to bookmark my posts whatever, just take into account my answer in an allied thread, to Izzy, see Annex below.

In the meantime, I wish you happy thinking and writing, I will look up your new posts addressed to me, as I love to monitor you, to observe whether at all you have something from your very own personal thinking on your own very personal mental resources at all.

Annex

burkmark

Dear Fresco, I have to leave you now, but I will be back tomorrow and see what you have for me, I hope something of substance.

In the meantime, as you read a lot, tell me where is this quote from, "Angels fear to tread where fools rush in," something to that effect.

blackmark

Thanks, Fresco, you are still in my company, glad that I can always count on you to have a warm body around, thanks a lot.

In addition to just bookmarking my thoughts, please also contribute something from your very own personal thinking, on the issue, Existence is the default status of things, okay?

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for Fresco to come up with some instances of thinking on his very own mental resources, as to contribute to the expatiation of the theme, Existence is the default status of things.

You see, dear readers, that theme means that when any thinker starts from non-existence as the default status of things, then he has in effect annihiated himself into non-existence: what about that?

Do you see how wrong i.e. irrational, crazy, stupid... it is to not start with existence as the default status of things in the totality of reality?

black and blue mark

Thanks for your warm body company, go to the thread on Why believe in God... I am asking you there with what concepts you think if not with human concepts.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for Fresco to tell us, with what concepts he thinks, if not with human concepts?

And he will tell us that he does not think, wherefore we now understand why he is not making any sense of his posts except to indulge in nonsense.

trademark

Bookmark, trademark, please what about dear Fresco marking yourself as intelligible.

At any rate, I see you to be a baby, so go back to sleep while I am busy thinking on how atheists think - they don't, they emote.

Even the warm body of a baby is good company; you see dear readers here, when you watch over a baby sleeping you will hear it farting gently as it sleeps peacefully in total security, with no nightmare whatever.

Now, Fresco has the picture of at present of a baby asleep farting bookmark and now trademark.

tidemark