That would only follow if the quoted statement was also true if there was no suffering.
If there exist some X, and it was true that either some X Y, or nothing Y, that would not imply that if it were the case that there are no X, that nothing Y.
If it is true that (H & J) -> K, and it is true that H, then it is true that J -> K.
Let H be "there is some suffering", let J be "something means something/matters", and K be "some suffering matters/ means something".
J -> K is equivalent to K or not J.
If one believes that "if there is some suffering, and there is something that matters, then some suffering matters", and one also believes that there is some suffering, one could then conclude that "either some suffering means something, or nothing does". This does not mean that one could conclude that "if there WERE no suffering, nothing would mean anything". Rather, one would only conclude that "if there IS no suffering, nothing means anything", but that is only because one already believes that there is some suffering. One could, under the beliefs above, reach the conclusion that "if there is no suffering, <insert anything here>" by the principle of explosion.
Well, yes, I was assuming that the elimination of suffering was a realizable goal, and if we assume it is a good goal, then accepting "there is suffering or nothing matters" implies that it is consequentially a goal to make nothing matter.
But like I said, it is the exchange of information that gives things meaning (that's what minds do,) and the only way to actually make nothing matter is to destroy all information-processing systems.
If there exist some X, and it was true that either some X Y, or nothing Y, that would not imply that if it were the case that there are no X, that nothing Y.
If it is true that (H & J) -> K, and it is true that H, then it is true that J -> K.
Let H be "there is some suffering", let J be "something means something/matters", and K be "some suffering matters/ means something".
J -> K is equivalent to K or not J.
If one believes that "if there is some suffering, and there is something that matters, then some suffering matters", and one also believes that there is some suffering, one could then conclude that "either some suffering means something, or nothing does". This does not mean that one could conclude that "if there WERE no suffering, nothing would mean anything". Rather, one would only conclude that "if there IS no suffering, nothing means anything", but that is only because one already believes that there is some suffering. One could, under the beliefs above, reach the conclusion that "if there is no suffering, <insert anything here>" by the principle of explosion.