That seems not to be quite right to me. It seems reasonable to say "I do prefer not to have existed.", but to claim that in case one had not existed one would have preferred it, is a step too far. That my existence is unhappy, does not entail that my non-existence is happy. — unenlightened

I think you're reading too much into it lol. "I'd prefer" is just a colloquial phrase.

But as T Clark points out, one's own happiness and preference is unimportant; it's other people's happiness that makes a wonderful life — unenlightened

Nobody would be missing much in my absence, and my life isn't wonderful.

I am a unique and special little snowflake in every way

I think you're reading too much into it lol. — flannel jesus

I wouldn't be doing that if I hadn't existed - so think yourself lucky. :wink:

I want to take a different approach from my previous expression of skepticism regarding measures of personal significance.

I like 's weighing the benefits against the disappointments possibly caused by presence or absence. Some of those elements are sharply drawn by regret or pleasure. A huge amount is made ambiguous by the paths not taken. Some of that must have been wise to some extent. Some of that must surely have been a loss of benefit for each or all involved. I think it is why Aristotle said luck could not be a cause; But also why he was wrong about that.

It seems like the speculation and fiction that most vividly describe the isolation of an individual build an enormous world in which to become isolated within.

Maybe Dostoyevsky is the exemplar for this sort of thing because so many of his "nihilists" are so damn gregarious.