I definitely get what you’re saying about subjectivity and how “nothing” is something, and I certainly see your point about how meaning is created through interactions between subjects and objects (much like how sentences with a subject and a linking verb aren’t complete without a subject complement). I also agree that “optimistic nihilism” sounds like a huge contradiction. That being said, I’m still not sure if any of that has any bearing on the truthfulness of the underlying principles of nihilism itself. If “nothing” is something (we both agree that it is), and that “something” includes the state of non-existence that (allegedly) comes after death, then it’s safe to say that non-existence is, like existence, still “something.” But what does that change? As I mentioned before, if all roads lead to a state of non-existence, then isn’t this all just an exercise in futility? Aren’t we, as Jim Carrey says, just a bunch of “fields of energy dancing for ourselves”? And if so, isn’t nihilism still technically correct, even if it’s not necessarily a good philosophy to live by?

I don’t know. I could very easily be missing something, or maybe I’m misinterpreting your argument to some extent. This is a heavy subject, for sure. I probably need to sit on it for a while. I appreciate your insights, though. You’ve given me something to think about today, so thank you for that! And thanks also for taking the time to respond!