There is a difference between "never having existed", "currently existing," and "ceasing to exist."

As a currently existing creature, I have an interest in continuing said existence, because as you said:

. There is a "nobility" to existence, a sort of delicate beauty to growth, maturation, flourishing. There is possibility in existence. — darthbarracuda

Once I no longer exist, so too do my interests. Other people who continue to exist after me may look at my passing with thoughts about how much potential was possibly lost, but to me that won't matter anymore. But that does not mean that ceasing to exist didn't harm me--death harmed the once-existing creature.

Entities which have not yet existed likewise neither care nor not care about existing. It can't be better or worse for them to exist, because, in this context, "they" is just an abstract word waving in the direction of non-entities/hypotheticals.

"Reason for existence" is too vague. Of course there are reasons, or else nothing would actually exist. My parents wanted a baby so here I am. Their parents wanted babies, so there they are.

For a while I've felt - can't argue for it - something like:

There is.
That there is a 'there is' is a brute absolute. Eternity.
There is no not being part of the 'there is'.
Not being a part of the 'there is' is only a fantasy from within the 'there is'
There is only the 'there is'
Being born is not a not a transition from not being a part of the 'there is' to the 'there is'
Being born is just a particular kind of inflection of the 'there is'.
There is no such thing as not being born
again: Being born is not being pulled into the 'there is' from outside it.

The 'there is' is eternal and there is no way to leave it, or not to enter it.

Once I no longer exist, so too do my interests. Other people who continue to exist after me may look at my passing with thoughts about how much potential was possibly lost, but to me that won't matter anymore. But that does not mean that ceasing to exist didn't harm me--death harmed the once-existing creature. — NKBJ

I can agree that the process of dying can be harmful, but to suddenly pop out of existence without any discomfort, fear or anything does not seem to me to be harmful. The point, in general, was that it doesn't really matter whether you exist in the next instant or not. If you do, your desire to exist has been satisfied. If you don't, then you no longer have a desire to exist that can be frustrated. Furthermore, does the desire to exist make sense? In some sense we are already dying; each one of us is descending, some of us faster than others. Some descend slowly enough that they forget they are descending.

Each one of us senses the world to revolve around us. The world and what we do in it is significant and has cosmic importance. My argument is that this significance is an illusion. Anything we see as allegedly important and justifying of existence, anything that gives existence a "point" or "purpose", is illusory. Someone can say, "I want to live because I want to do XYZ" but if they die before then, nothing will have been lost. When you die, you don't so much lose something important so much as you lose the sense of something being important. Something important is not ripped away from you - rather, you lose the sense of importance so that nothing is important anymore. Things that were "important" before are no longer important. In fact they never were important, they only seemed to be. This all comes about from a misunderstanding of what non-existence is, seeing it as an evil to be avoided when it is but the dissolution of importance, good and evil, any value whatsoever.

I've often considered what it would be like to suddenly and thoughtlessly kill myself. No planning, no shifting tides, no slow descent, no last words, no final goodbye. Just an immediate ceasing of my life. It might hurt a bit, but soon after none of that would matter. It would be like breaking out, destroying the chains that keep me anchored in being. Letting go of the ropes, falling away into nothingness. Is such an immediate negating of experience possible?

Entities which have not yet existed likewise neither care nor not care about existing. It can't be better or worse for them to exist, because, in this context, "they" is just an abstract word waving in the direction of non-entities/hypotheticals. — NKBJ

I think we can say that someone is better off never existing without implying they literally are better off. They have "interests", at least insofar as there are people who do exist and have the power to bring others into existence.

I'm glad you shared your thoughts on the "there is". I have had this feeling as well, and I cannot argue for it either. Theologians like Origen argued for the pre-existence of the souls, so that who "we" are in a transcendental sense is immortal. Our material existence is but a mode of being, and to go a gnostic route, it is a prison built by Satan and perpetuated by procreation. God is trying to save us from being reincarnated into the material world. We are souls trapped in fleshy bodies and salvation comes from freeing ourselves from this cycle of rebirth. In a very real sense, people are literally better off never being born and existing in union with God instead of in separation, in the material world.

I can't argue for this, like you said it's just a feeling. Maybe it's a defense mechanism, like a hope for something after death. I don't know, other than I'm weary. I recall Levinas' term "excendance", or the urge to escape Being with no destination mind. It's not transcendence to a higher plane of Being, it's excendance, just the impossible desire to escape it all.

I have had this feeling as well, and I cannot argue for it either.

That's kind of a relief. It's a weird thought, it's nice to know others have it too.

We are souls trapped in fleshy bodies and salvation comes from freeing ourselves from this cycle of rebirth. In a very real sense, people are literally better off never being born and existing in union with God instead of in separation, in the material world.

Maybe non-flesh relies on first being flesh though. Logically, I don't know if this makes sense. But some higher logic. It just is the way it is. Trying to show how it doesn't have to logically be that way is just trying to bend a higher order to the demands of a lower order (logic) which depends on the higher order.

The perfection of not-being can only be achieved through being, which has to exist (for a tip-of-the-tongue reason that can never be adequately articulated.)

We can't understand why, and maybe nobody can understand why, but nevertheless it persists.

I don't know, other than I'm weary.

Me too.

But less weary than I've been for most of my (post-puberty) life.

This sounds banal, but I've found the best way out of weariness is to go to bed early, wake up early, and do stuff. (Don't like Peterson mostly, but his 'clean your room' is right on.) Shower right when you get up, put on some coffee, make a breakfast sandwich. Do some cleaning. Everything seems less overwhelming if you begin the day with action instead of reaction and rumination. Of course this doesn't touch on why one should even have to do anything to even feel just ok. But whatever. We've been born, so we do have to work to be ok, and this does help. I've found it even helps when the thoughts get realllly bad. If you listen to them, they'll pin you down. Getting up and doing something is like cutting a gordian knot. It's hard as shit to get up, but once you do, and have a goal, it gets progressively easier. Also, write 750-1000 words of reflection each night a few hours before crashing- and also write some groggy, grumpy stream of conscious stuff when you get up. Find the narrative in your life. write about the most mundane aspects of your life, don't tie it back to phil stuff, unless it happens organically. If your life is boring, doesn't matter, write it out. Having a handle on your own story is way more worthwhile than a handle on e.g. Kant. E.g. Kant is awesome, but, like, only if you have a handle on the other stuff.

All this stuff has helped me a lot in the past few months. Know this is off topic, but only kind of.

Each one of us senses the world to revolve around us. The world and what we do in it is significant and has cosmic importance. My argument is that this significance is an illusion. — darthbarracuda

In some sense, I am not sure how these sentences hang together. You are - and I am - what you/I make of ourselves in the world. Your dealings with the world are significant to you while alive, insignificant after death, and of ongoing significance to the world variably, depending on how you live your life.

Anything we see as allegedly important and justifying of existence, anything that gives existence a "point" or "purpose", is illusory. Someone can say, "I want to live because I want to do XYZ" but if they die before then, nothing will have been lost. When you die, you don't so much lose something important so much as you lose the sense of something being important. — darthbarracuda

I don't know. Death is not meaningless or purposeless in the same way that the universe is not meaningless or purposeless; the concept of meaning or purpose is not lacking or absent in either, because the concept properly belongs to human life -- it has no friction when applied to death.

Something important is not ripped away from you - rather, you lose the sense of importance so that nothing is important anymore. — darthbarracuda

Yes, something is ripped away from you -- your life, all meaning and purpose. Since the concepts (meaning, purpose) have no 'friction' in death, it cannot seem to apply to you after death, but that doesn't mean that from within the perspective of life nothing is lost. Yes, there is of course a so-to-speak transition in perspectives -- from the perspective of life to the perspective of death -- but that transition is itself a loss. I lose not just everything meaningful, significant, but my meaningful worldliness. Even if I would not have time to comprehend the loss, it is still a loss.

Of course this doesn't touch on why one should even have to do anything to even feel just ok. — csalisbury

THIS is at the heart of what I was getting at in the other thread- the "always-having-to-balance" in the first place. As seen here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3556/why-youre-not-doing-it-right-is-revealing/p1

I'd read your OP and was thinking of it when I said that!

I think I understand your point, but - - -

Was gonna type up a thing here, I'll respond over there though