Regardless of whether or not it is to be our ultimate fate, it's surely pertinent to ask how the idea of ‘Eternal Annialation’ should be objectively evaluated, in terms of the tolerablenes or otherwise which such a prospect would represent for an individual.
Some would argue that to attempt to evaluate in the abstract the idea of such a concept as our fate would lead to an unduly severe view of our human situation and that, in order to be correctly evaluated, the prospect of eternal annialation requires to be considered in the context of the degree of potential for fulfilment which the life experience preceding it in principle permits.
But even given the notion that viewing this prospect in such an alleviating context might seem to render it less nihilistic and even perhaps tolerable, within the limits of the human capacity for stoicism, nonetheless how could we know that our concept of the idea was yet fully adequate and not naive?
I ask because simple hypothetical arguments, like the one I cite below, seem to suggest that the idea that the concept of eternal annialation does fall within the limits of human capacity for stoicism don’t really add up and that notions of it are platitudinous.
So consider each of the two following hypothetical situations, both depicting an individual on the point of death:-
The first lies on a comfortable bed tended by the ministries of a lifetime of loving friends, their only wish being to ensure that the departure of their beloved is accomplished as humanely as possible. The fate of this individual following death however is one of unqualified eternal annialation.
The second unfortunate sits alone in an ink black freezing pit without hope of escape, knowing that at dawn he is to be taken out to be hanged, drawn and quartered. He is experiencing ineffable spiritual loneliness, and in a state of terror beyond that capable to be vicariously suspected. Having come through this fire however the personal fate of this individual is one of constructive eternal life.

Given the scenarios are entirely hypothetical, nonetheless there can be no question regarding which we would correctly choose to suffer.
So obviously - if eternal annialation would in principle be a worse fate than that above – then whence the apparent sanguinity with which some seem able to profess their acceptance of same, no sign of them having torn their hair or wrent their garments on the journey towards their state of courageous resignation?

All this never mind the plausible curcumstance wherein an individual's personal situation in life may unavoidably be less than fulfilling. I anyway - am a bit suspicious!