Welcome to yet another episodee of "Why is this post scored so low?". I'm your host ;)
This kind of reads like word association, which people here are probably not fond of. I certainly find it unconvincing. This is kind of like slam poetry, but people here prefer an essay. I think you could actually clear this post up a bit by doing 2 things: add a section header at every topic change and make sure every section is self contained. This would make sure you're making an argument instead of a narrative.
Secondly, I have no real clue what you are writing about. This is kind of like a dialogue with yourself, and much of the argument is left implicit. Make some of that explicit.
Also, cut down on statements given with no argument behind them (ex: "If everything has the same utility, then there’s no difference between being alive and dead."). If a statement is trivial, it's usually either uninteresting or a rhetorical trick, neither of which makes a fun to read essay.
There's no essay to write because the argument is simple: reductio ad absurdum & proof by contradiction. Saying it in this form makes it more entertaining, and it's pointless to add more jargon on top of it. If you wish to appropriate it, here it is but written in an even shorter form:
If two choices have the same utility (nihilism is objective) then you are stuck with the current one, i.e., since you are alive, then Spinozian conatus is the objective meaning of life
The triviality of the statement that you had pointed out is the core of the issue: interpreting meaning as a preference relation.
Meaning is good.
Lack of meaning is bad.
Therefore, nihilism is bad, so it should be combated.
But, what is "meaning" exactly?
A purpose of sorts, apparently.
Yet, who precisely defines what this purpose entails? The self. What a convenient abstract concept to use, almost as if you could write a book or two about it.
Thus, if the "purpose" doesn't have a defined length, let's play a game.
To combat nihilism, one can give meaning to whatever, right? Alright, then let's give meaning to death. Our purpose should be to kill ourselves. The purpose of life is to blow your brains out. And so, nihilism is over!
I mean, what difference does it make? Will your lifespan ever end? Presumably, it will, unless you become immortal. If we are talking about immortality, then let's talk about the death of the universe. Is it going to happen? Well, if it will, then there goes your immortality. You might as well already be dead. So why not kill yourself?
Why exactly is life more rational than death? Only depressed people kill themselves, and they don't think rationally, so killing yourself isn't rational? What a sad excuse. What about these poor madmen? Actually, what about the common people? What about your family, friends, or whomever else? Aren't they suicidal, too? Why the hell do they engage in activities that shorten their lifespan? Wouldn't a nonsuicidal person ensure that they live forever? I mean, if they preferred life to death, then they would, right? So, how exactly does a teenager blowing their brains out differ from a person who dies of senile age? On an individual level, there's no difference.
What determines the choice, then? Some say that free will exists, others that all your actions are determined by external forces. But, let's think about this rationally. Where does the idea of free will come from? The Bible, maybe. Does it matter where it comes from? If we are to consider the idea as it has evolved throughout time, various perspectives, blah blah blah, sure. There's no time for that, so we will think theoretically. A "typical" atheist would say, "Free will is anthropocentrism! Determinism is scientific, and we live in the 21st century!" Let's think about this. Don't both of these ideas assume that humans exist OUTSIDE OF NATURE? Free will means that humans are, for SOME REASON, superior to other things, because whereas other things are susceptible to the influence of either themselves or humans, humans are free of this menace. They can choose freely! On the other hand, determinism suggests that humans are, for SOME REASON, inferior to other things, because whereas other things are somehow influenced by each other, humans can't influence their own behavior. This is idiotic.
Having shown that both free will and determinism are true, let's go back to the issue of killing ourselves, shall we? We are prevented by the nasty self-preservation instinct. However, we are rationalists, and we will overcome this biological bias. Western civilization has gone so far! Racism is rooted in biology, as Sapolsky shows, but we care not about Sapolsky, we care about objectivity! Therefore, away with racism, away with self-preservation!
How are we going to go about doing so? We should think of everything as meaningless. Our subjective experiences don't mean anything objectively, so why should we follow them? Oh no! We still make choices! Aren't we according to a meaning whatever to the choices that we make? Why else would we make them? Darn it. Yet what's the criterium? If everything is meaningless, then everything has the same utility, no? So, having arrived at the fact that our breathing isn't rationally justified, we wish to cease breathing, but for what reason? Gone, gone, existentialism and absurdism. We must become nihilists now!
If everything has the same utility, then there's no difference between being alive and dead. To choose death is to say that being dead is preferable to being alive, but there's no basis to do so on because everything is meaningless. Alas, we are already alive. Objectively, then, we are forced to perpetuate our own existence.
It seems as if Spinoza's conatus is the objective meaning of life. What do you think?