Originally Posted by
Lurina
In this case (though the Ea stuff also does something similar) Endwalker takes it as an indisputable truth of reality that all people experience ennui to the point it can make them profoundly miserable. But this isn't so. Ennui is a subjective emotional experience that is reported extremely differently between individuals; the assertion is at best a guess, and at worse, completely false.
A big problem with how Endwalker argues is, like I mentioned briefly earlier, its absolutism. While the inference>thesis leap is essentially the same in both Endwalker and The Good Place, The Good Place merely argues that some people will experience terminal boredom in its anti-hedonism argument, while Endwalker - in trying to indirectly defend Hydaelyn for the Sundering, and its more extreme viewpoint generally - is forced to assert that people will eventually arrive at that state as a matter of general truth, and in doing so, makes that fact>inference assumption.
While The Good Place doesn't have to do that, because the idea that just some people experience extreme ennui is observably true.