The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

[SpectrePhantasia]

I mean, the hot topic of the hour is pretty relevant to this lore question regardless, and after it being answered in a single post, I hardly think that guy is to blame for it happening. It was funny bait though.

[Lyth]

...

The Convocation was dead set on pursuing further sacrifice and weren't interested in hearing out any alternatives. We know this from the recordings contained within Anamnesis Anyder. The dissenting faction consisted of the few supporters who rallied behind Venat. Everyone else had rallied behind Zodiark and the decision of the Convocation.

'By the summoning of Zodiark have we been granted a reprieve. Yet immutable as the laws he has woven may seem, they will not serve to forestall our doom.

Nay should we continue down this path, our fate will be the same. I said as much to the Convocation, of course, but the stubborn fools turned a deaf ear to my warnings. I had hoped that the defector, at least, would side with us, but I regret to report our overtures have gone unanswered.'

It's funny that you should mention the survivors of the Eighth Umbral Calamity. They didn't work to undo the pain that they experienced. They worked to build a better future. What happens to them after G'raha alters the timeline is discussed in Tales from the Shadows: An Unpromised Tomorrow.

'And so our journey began anew. Would that G’raha Tia could see all that we will accomplish. Though we shall remain forever on different pages of history─and different books, besides─I take comfort in knowing we strive for a future of the selfsame brightness.'

These can only considered platitudes in that they are self-evident truths. Would that the Ancients known to heed them.

[Lersayil]

The Convocation was dead set on pursuing further sacrifice and weren't interested in hearing out any alternatives. We know this from the recordings contained within Anamnesis Anyder. The dissenting faction consisted of the few supporters who rallied behind Venat. Everyone else had rallied behind Zodiark and the decision of the Convocation.

'By the summoning of Zodiark have we been granted a reprieve. Yet immutable as the laws he has woven may seem, they will not serve to forestall our doom.

Nay should we continue down this path, our fate will be the same. I said as much to the Convocation, of course, but the stubborn fools turned a deaf ear to my warnings. I had hoped that the defector, at least, would side with us, but I regret to report our overtures have gone unanswered.'

It's funny that you should mention the survivors of the Eighth Umbral Calamity. They didn't work to undo the pain that they experienced. They worked to build a better future. What happens to them after G'raha alters the timeline is discussed in Tales from the Shadows: An Unpromised Tomorrow.

'And so our journey began anew. Would that G’raha Tia could see all that we will accomplish. Though we shall remain forever on different pages of history─and different books, besides─I take comfort in knowing we strive for a future of the selfsame brightness.'

These can only considered platitudes in that they are self-evident truths. Would that the Ancients known to heed them.

There is nothing self evident about Venats points. She presented a moral and philosophical argument with no solid proof or reason. She argued the ancients should move on, and accept suffering as a new way of life just because. Include the information on Meteion, and she would have had a solid argument, but without it, it just comes across as empty moralizing. Her "self-evident truths" are controversial even for us real people. I'd imagine it'd be even harder to sell them to a society with demonstrably better average quality of life.

[Kordarion]

There is nothing self evident about Venats points. She presented a moral and philosophical argument with no solid proof or reason. She argued the ancients should move on, and accept suffering as a new way of life just because. Include the information on Meteion, and she would have had a solid argument, but without it, it just comes across as empty moralizing. Her "self-evident truths" are controversial even for us real people. I'd imaginde it'd be even harder to sell them to a society with demonstrably better average quality of life.

Except suffering isn't a new way of life, it is a part of life period, sure we can have long stretches of time where we don't suffer, an in-game example is the pre-final days for the ancients, but that even when there is a reprieve it WILL eventually end, nothing good lasts forever. Even then it wasn't truly a reprieve as instead it was the life they created, modified and destroyed depending on how they wanted to curate their ecosystem that suffered. Its controversial not because it isn't true, it's controversial because people, rightfully so, don't like having to acknowledge the suffering inherent to life unless they are forced to. And even then they often, understandably so, still don't like doing so because humans prefer happiness to suffering.

[Lersayil]

Except suffering isn't a new way of life, it is a part of life period, sure we can have long stretches of time where we don't suffer, an in-game example is the pre-final days for the ancients, but that even when there is a reprieve it WILL eventually end, nothing good lasts forever. Even then it wasn't truly a reprieve as instead it was the life they created, modified and destroyed depending on how they wanted to curate their ecosystem that suffered. Its controversial not because it isn't true, it's controversial because people, rightfully so, don't like having to acknowledge the suffering inherent to life unless they are forced to. And even then they often, understandably so, still don't like doing so because humans prefer happiness to suffering.

Its a part of our lives. But not by choice. The game and some people seem to push this notion that suffering is an essential force, one that should not be eliminated. A universal truth if you will. To some degree I agree. But it should be minimized to a point where using the word 'suffering' would be inapropriate, and should be in no way aggrandized. Given a choice, no sane person would choose suffering over not, unless provided a very good reason. In Venats case there was one, but she chose not to reveal it. Platitudes and empty moral arguments in the face of a global tragedy does not a good reason make, even moreso since there already was a concrete plan in place for restoration (possibly horrible as it may have been).

[Veloran]

Except suffering isn't a new way of life, it is a part of life period, sure we can have long stretches of time where we don't suffer, an in-game example is the pre-final days for the ancients, but that even when there is a reprieve it WILL eventually end, nothing good lasts forever.

I imagine you would have quite a different perspective if your history was people living for eons in peace before potentially choosing to be reborn in an endless cycle of reincarnation. Lersayil is right. When Venat made the argument that they should accept huge amounts of suffering - That is to say 75% of their people being trapped in Zodiark - and that his solution was flawed, it could only have come off as nonsensical. She didn't even tell them about Meteion or Dynamis, so why would they believe there was some persistent threat out there gunning to kill them? She offered nothing to support her cause.

I would also argue that indeed in the 8UC timeline they were working to undo all their suffering. For all they knew they were deleting their own timeline and replacing it with one where the Calamity had never happened.

[Lyth]

Venat's faction wasn't making a case for fatalism, and just sitting down to die. Her stance was about having the resilience to move forward in the face of suffering while having the determination to seek out sustainable solutions for the long term. Trying to bring back the souls that were sacrificed to Zodiark by sacrificing the souls of yet others does nothing to advance a solution out of the stalemate, especially when we know that Zodiark is only a temporary countermeasure. There are plenty of short-sighted, hedonistic things that you can do to make your quality of life better in the present, but that doesn't mean that it will last forever.

Likewise, the survivors of the Eighth Umbral Calamity didn't erase their suffering. They suffered tremendously, but they survived. And they took steps for themselves to build a better future under the guidance of Midgardsormr. Again, resilience.

I always find it odd when someone uses the term 'platitude' as a rhetorical tool to make a point sound less valid. They're platitudes because they are truths that are so blatantly self-evident to most people and so often repeated that you're bored of hearing them. It's a bit like conceding that your views go against common sense.

[Veloran]

Venat's faction wasn't making a case for fatalism, and just sitting down to die. Her stance was about having the resilience to move forward in the face of suffering while having the determination to seek out sustainable solutions for the long term.

A wonderfully sweet-sounding principle that does nothing to elucidate why exactly they should be willing to leave 75% of their race trapped inside Zodiark when they could yet be saved. Venat didn't even tell them they were in a conflict, why should they believe her on nothing but the basis of unfounded rhetoric?

Likewise, the survivors of the Eighth Umbral Calamity didn't erase their suffering.

For all they knew, that is exactly what they were doing.

[Lersayil]

I always find it odd when someone uses the term 'platitude' as a rhetorical tool to make a point sound less valid. They're platitudes because they are truths that are so blatantly self-evident to most people and so often repeated that you're bored of hearing them. It's a bit like conceding that your views go against common sense.

Have you ever been served a bad platitude in a low point of your life?

Platitudes have a number of issues, one frequent among them is the people using them actually not understanding the reasoning behind them, hence using them incorrectly.

Venats reasoning was sound for a situation where there was no other reasonable choice but to accept, move on, and solve greater issues. Had the Ancients been on the same page it might've worked, but from their point of view the issue was all but resolved, and their life philosophy never actually failed. Venats argument would sound disconnected from the actual situation. (which feeds into another issue of platitudes where the deliverer just comes across as distant, preachy, disconnected and unempathetic even if they are correct)

Anyways I think my point is that they can be infuriating even when used correctly at the best of times with the best of intentions. Venats case was... some of these.

That being said, it might just be a careless mistranslation on my part. The corresponding word in my language has a strictly negative (and worse) connotation, and I never heard anyone use 'platitude' in a better context.

[SpectrePhantasia]

The Convocation was dead set on pursuing further sacrifice and weren't interested in hearing out any alternatives.

You're not taking into account the timing of these events, and I do not blame you because the timing is never furthered upon in a meaningful way, in lieu of the vague nothing cutscene we were given. The scene in Anamnesis Anyder was before Hydaelyn had ever been summoned, and thus, this single Ancient's opinion did not constitute what Elidibus said before his death, which was:

'This... Yes... I would become Him. I would save everyone. This I believed. Yet still they cried out, in rage and despair... Divided—over the fate of the star. A rare occurrence, always fleeting. But not this time. Not this time... Reconciliation. Elidibus. I was needed. I withdrew myself from Zodiark. For them... My people. My brothers. ...My friends.'

At this point a great many Ancients were split on this issue, it was not 'fleeting' and implies Elidibus realized he needed to mend the conflict after it had already been going on for a while—as in, after Hydaelyn had been summoned, not before. Hydaelyn was a living embodiment of resistance, and I believe it made Elidibus question the path they were on. Do you think the 3rd sacrifice would have occurred without the heart of Zodiark in control, as the last two did? I cannot see that occurring, and certainly don't see it as the inevitability that you claim it is. To say they were 'dead set' on pursuing sacrifices at this point is woefully inaccurate, when the person who is actually controlling Zodiark decides the conflict isn't worth it and withdraws himself from the primal, at the cost of his power (To a point where Hydaelyn is able to beat him). Again we are unfortunately lacking in a great deal of vital information, thank you Endwalker.

Also, if you'd read the very same novella you linked me, you would find that for all they knew, they were, in fact, erasing the past, they themselves even called it 'altering history.' That this is done in pursuit of changing what came before is inarguable, even Graha frames it as 'If history must be unwritten, let it be unwritten.' I fail to see how this is in any way different from what the Ancients were attempting to do, and who could blame them? Wishing for the better days of the past is normal when you are experiencing the literal apocalypse. That some would sacrifice unwilling life for that is wrong, but again, not every Ancient believed that to be right, and this resistance convinced the most important member of the Convocation at the time to step down. It was far more nuanced than what Venat's blanket judgement and cutscene could ever cover, and it goes ignored in service of hollow 'self-evident truths' given with no plan of action.