<p>Devlin Brown takes on the weighty task of determining the existentially relevant consequences of physicalism. He delivers on this project over three parts that consider in turn: whether physicalism is compatible with various metaphysical consolations obtaining; whether the case for existential optimism defeats the case for existential pessimism; and whether there’s a version of physicalism we have good reason to believe. I challenge several of Devlin Brown’s claims. First, I challenge the import of his arguments that various existential consolations are consistent with at least one version of physicalism. Second, I challenge the claim that existential optimism is more mentally healthy than existential pessimism. Third, I challenge Devlin Brown’s characterisation of Russellian physicalism and its advantages over competing physicalist responses to the hard problem of consciousness.</p>