On Venat's Role in the Story

[CrownySuccubus]

Snip

The reason why they were part of The Dead Ends (and thus Ultima Thule) is because they were one of the many, many worlds whom Meteion felt pure despair from within the final moments of their star. That is the theme of Ultima Thule and the entire reasoning behind Meteion's actions. This is also confirmed by the logs you read within The Plenty. This is also confirmed by the devs, who stated that The Plenty was a metaphor for what was going to happen to the Ancients if Hermes and Venat had never destroyed it. Whether or not they were happy to die is irrelevant, because everybody in U.T. was happy to die -- but the game never stops reminding us of why that's a bad thing. And the theme of Endwalker is: "how do we prevent this from happening, or delay it as long as possible"?

Thus, it is impossible to engage with The Plenty as a story element without also engaging with how the story wants us to learn from and prevent their same ends. And that is impossible unless we're willing to ask why a society as advanced and seemingly intelligent as them were written to be so (I'm going to stop using the word "stupid") unsophisticated.

Again, my problem is that it makes me roll my eyes when seemingly advanced or intelligent creatures are completely hornswoggled by concepts or ideas that humanity has been engaging with for millennia. Like I said, I give the Dragons a pass because they weren't particularly an advanced race that should have sorted all of these issues out, because their end came swiftly from circumstances outside of their control, and because we're told that they tried until the end to find a way to stop it. I also don't have too much criticism for the Omicron (although, because they're machines, I really think they should have answered the "What do we do when we're the strongest?" question sooner), because at least Sir (or at least, his simulacrum) was still searching for answers until the end.

I honestly think the Nekropolis was the best part of U.T.. A planet where everyone's just dead, and we don't know why because no one exists who can tell their story. The subtlety of that is tantalizingly terrifying to ponder.

I understand that this story (like a lot of Japanese media) is trying to cover the many ideas of Mono no Aware ("All things end"), but there are just SO many stories which (in my opinion) do it better than what feels IMO like the clumsy writing of EW. Off the top of my head, I can cite Persona 3 and the Dark Souls franchise. Within the FF franchise, I think Final Fantasy VI and IX also handle it so much better.

Aside: I wanna thank everybody here for the civil discussion. I may not agree with you guys, but you've brought up challenging points and have likewise respected my opinion. That's one reason why I'm going to refrain further from calling anything in the story "stupid" as a show of respect.

[EaraGrace]

But this is exactly the problem: the story can't have it both ways. We're flat out told by the narrative that the Ea and the Plenty had solved all problems. Either they did or they didn't.

If they didn't, then the entire premise they're meant to be metaphors for is wrong. They were no more perfect than us. If they did, then the way they died out makes no sense.

The games quite clear that removing all known problems from a society in turn creates new ones. Its not trying to have it both ways.

To quote Meteion, who brings up some pretty prescient examples

Meteion: One race had concluded that finite time was the root of all woes. Aspiring to shatter its shackles, they went in search of infinity. They discovered nothing is infinite, and that neither time or death can be cheated. Disillusioned, they gave up on the future-and themselves

Meteion: One race had discarded all things that gave rise to sorrow, hoping to have only joy. They found joy had lost its savor in the absence of sorrow, and lost their will to live.

The point I think, is to demonstrate that despite their supposed "perfection," each and every one became a Dead End. The story isn't trying to both say these societies are perfect and they failed, but that no society is perfect and they, believing it possible to achieve perfection fell apart when faced with that reality. That to me is logically consistent.

Again, they can't have it both ways. Is the Ea's despair about the heat death of the universe, or is it a metaphor for inevitability itself? If the heat death of the universe is the problem (which is what the Ea tell you), then the fact that time travel is not brought up rebuts their argument. To them, this should have been another problem to solve. If they eventually did get to the same problem as the Plenty (which, as I said above, is another area of ridiculousness), then the same thing I said before applies.

The issue is that the Ea realized that they can't solve that problem. To quote the Ea

Coph-coodg: In hopes of proving that this determination was erroneous, we scrutinized our research from all angles, even as we sought to avert the everlasting winter. The endeavor proved fruitless. So infamously so, in fact, that it became synonymous with vain effort. The universe as we know it would end, and there is no way to prevent it.

All their knowledge yielded no solution and that broke them.

This logic only works if you are completely incapable of considering new information once presented -- which seems completely unlikely for any intelligent species. In fact, certainty in general is considered an absurdity in any scientific field. Scientists typically try to avoid saying things like "This is how the universe works, absolutely" and moreso say "This is how the universe works, based on current theory". They do this because the entire basis of scientific integrity is the assumption that new information is always possible.

True to an extent. Suggest to a scientist that Newtons laws or General Relativity is wrong and you'd have to show evidence. Hell take the current scholarship on climate change for example. Most are pretty forthright about how depressing the future is.

You'll notice that I didn't mention the Dragons. I thought they (and to a lesser extent, the Omicrons, although, I do have issues with them) were pretty well-done and believable. The Ea and the Plenty, though? No. They came across as plot devices which represent what people who don't actually engage in academia think academia is like.

And I disagree. I see the currents of the Plenty and the Ea in antinatalism, nihilism, and various other philosophical beliefs and I don't believe those are only believed by idiots.

Yeah, because they honestly shouldn't have. Their demise came came because two Ancients (Hermes and Venat) chose to ignore the protocols that their society had put in place in order to prove/disprove whether or not that society was fit to live. Emet-Selch pointed out the problem with Meteion so fast that we're basically left to conclude that if Hermes had followed protocol, the Convocation would have been able to point out the flaw in his approach and create a SETI machine that didn't gain depression when it slammed into the Fermi Paradox.

As I said, the entire situation just feels like an elaborate strawman deliberately cherry-picked to make Venat right.

Would peer review change the answer Meteion found? Would it change the fact that Ancient society is primed to kill itself, as Hermes points out? Emet agrees with his argument there as well.

(Continued) Which is EXACTLY my point.

Technically, Venat WAS wrong. But you're not supposed to THINK about that. Reason for living or not, humanity was going to be utterly screwed if the Scions had not gotten every possible warning she could throw at them about the Final Days. If she had done to them the same thing she did to the Ancients (silence), expac 7.0 would be "The Adventures of the Moon in the cold, empty void".

Except we didn't go to the moon. We fought for the other path and won. The path she laid for us and believed we were capable of walking. So she was right!

Like I said before: there would have been NO difference between humanity's outcome and that of the Ancients. But, we're not supposed to think about it, and the game bends over backwards to make Venat "right", because the outcome allows us to exist and not them. "Sucks for you, but I got mine."



I repeat: it NEVER should have gotten to that point. Venat should have given the Convocation as many warnings about Meteion and the Final Days as she gives us in the story. Then, maybe the Ancients would have been able to make more informed decisions. Maybe they wouldn't. But they deserved as much of a chance as the Sundered races got.

Instead, Venat basically chose to play Hermes' game by Hermes' rules. The two engaged in a philosophical pissing match that resulted in 12,000 years of repeated genocides across 14 worlds.

The Ancients made no attempt to face suffering and in fact made it impossible for anyone to do so. If the Ancients wished to face Meteion they would need to do three things.

1. Sunder themselves or reduce their aether to dramatically lower levels in order to manipulate dynamis and face non-voluntary death.
2. Seal away Zodiark to prevent him from answering their self imposed suffering
3. Dedicate all of their resources to finding a way to Ultima

The Ancients we see in Endwalker and Shadowbringers repeatedly reject suffering as a concept, forming a society without personal expression and one that instead focuses solely on "perfecting" the star. In both expansions we see others say that this will inevitably lead to Dead End, as without a different purpose Ancient society would end itself. On top of that, the Ancients when faced with mortality where so traumatized and broken the event seared itself onto their souls and pushed them to create a god capable of not only stopping the crisis but undoing it entirely, at high cost.

They traded their future for their past willingly. Thus do I agree with Venat, they would not willingly walk the path. Because who would right?

This realization leads to the Sundering and why I personally find it to be the right move. I can understand why others find it disagreeable, Venat herself had doubts, but for humanity to survive other options do not exist. Telling the Ancients of Meteion would not change what needed to be done, or the actions required to change things. They would have to abandon their previous world and embark on a new path. I don't think they would.

Aside: I wanna thank everybody here for the civil discussion. I may not agree with you guys, but you've brought up challenging points and have likewise respected my opinion. That's one reason why I'm going to refrain further from calling anything in the story "stupid" as a show of respect.

And Crowny let me say I appreciate your perspective as well! This has been one of the more enjoyable conversations on this topic and I have a lot of respect for your opinion on it!

[Absimiliard]

I can't help but feel delaying the inevitable is the wrong approach, and telling people they should fear and the resist a very much mandatory end isn't necessarily a great message to be sending in the context they used to frame it.

Framed in terms of the game; Venat bought time, and her people's very existence was the currency. The primary issue here is simply that it will happen again. The inhabitants of the Source and its shards are showing clear signs of progressing right back where their forbears have already been, although it will be a slow process that isn't going to happen within the time frame of the game itself. The Plenty was not averted, only delayed. Same for the death of the universe.

[Erendis]

The Plenty are just shallow people that became bored with everything. Removing all sad/bad/whatever things does not mean you can't still be interested in something.

[CrownySuccubus]

The games quite clear that removing all known problems from a society in turn creates new ones. Its not trying to have it both ways.

Yes it is, because the Plenty's reason for despairing was that they could find no new problems to bring their lives joy.

The game wants to conflate "solving all known problems" and "solving all possible problems" as the same thing, and that's a contradiction.

To quote Meteion, who brings up some pretty prescient examples

Those two examples are the Ea and the Plenty, whom we are already discussing.

The point I think, is to demonstrate that despite their supposed "perfection," each and every one became a Dead End. The story isn't trying to both say these societies are perfect and they failed, but that no society is perfect and they, believing it possible to achieve perfection fell apart when faced with that reality. That to me is logically consistent.

Yes they are. The entire point of The Plenty was that they had achieved perfection and thus, could find no new struggles to bring joy to their lives. If the source of their ennui was "we have solved all known problems", then that ennui should have ended the moment they realized that their perfection itself was a problem.

"But they didn't want to do that" is not an valid explanation, in my opinion. To me, that is no different than trying to justify why a cartoon villain monologues instead of shooting the hero with "well, he's just arrogant". How convenient that the characters are irrational when it serves the plot.

All their knowledge yielded no solution and that broke them.

The reason I brought up time travel is to illustrate how this is a "show, don't tell" issue. Time travel is the direct solution to their problem, but the game does not address it. This also goes into what I said about the Ea's logic only works if you assume the impossibility of new information. Are the Ea basing this conclusion on what they know, or is the story saying that they literally do know everything? If it's the former, "what they know", then the Ea are excluding the possibility that there could ever be any new information. If it's the latter, "they literally do know everything", then we go back into what I said before about the game literally claiming they achieved "perfection" (perfect knowledge in this case). So which is it? Again, the story can't have it both ways.


(1/2)

[CrownySuccubus]

True to an extent. Suggest to a scientist that Newtons laws or General Relativity is wrong and you'd have to show evidence. Hell take the current scholarship on climate change for example. Most are pretty forthright about how depressing the future is.

Sure. But one key reason why every scientist on Earth doesn't slit their wrists the moment they conclude the futility and insignificance of human existence is because of the possibility of paradigm shifts. While it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find a way to escape our solar system or galactic arm before the inevitable supernova that claims it, there's still a lot that science cannot predict about the potential of discovery. "Never give up because you don't know what can happen" is literally one of the "correct" solutions that the game touts for overcoming despair, so the possibility of new information is one of the things the game is telling us is correct. That's why I find it so unbelievable that humans have been capable of this for thousands of years and yet it completely perplexed advanced aliens who supposedly solved every problem.

And I disagree. I see the currents of the Plenty and the Ea in antinatalism, nihilism, and various other philosophical beliefs and I don't believe those are only believed by idiots.

"Idiocy" is relative here. These aliens are stated to be infinitely wiser and more advanced than we are currently, but they somehow could not conceive of simple concepts that would save their entire civilization.

I understand that this was likely intended as narrative irony, but it just does not work for me in a similar vein to the aforementioned villain monologuing. It irritates me when intelligent or knowledgeable characters suddenly need to be less so for the plot to work.

Would peer review change the answer Meteion found? Would it change the fact that Ancient society is primed to kill itself, as Hermes points out? Emet agrees with his argument there as well.

At the very least, it possibly could have prepared her better. This is something Emet explicitly states when he points out the flaw of Meteion's mission. Hermes built her under the assumption that she would find joyful or at least inspirational emotions and feelings in space, and did not even consider the possibility of the opposite. The shock and trauma of finding it is what drove the Meteia insane.

Also as I said, maybe the Ancients would have found an answer. Maybe they wouldn't have. But they deserved as much warning and chances to find out as the Sundered races did. The only reason why we "didn't go to the moon" (as you put it) is because we received 12,000 years of warnings from Hydaelyn. Remove vital things like her giving us the Elpis flower, her helping people (including the WOL) get the Echo, her creating the moon, her creating the Loporrits, her giving us Meteion's exactly location, and modern Sundered races would have been as screwed as the Ancients, who she did not give nearly as much warning to.

And like I said before the idea that the Ancients "rejected the idea of suffering" is not something that is backed up by their society as we see it.

This also ties into other points you raised: the Ancients CAN manipulate Dynamis. Or, rather, they can create familiars that can. If they couldn't, Meteion wouldn't exist. Furthermore, they also could have gotten to Ultima Thule. Though we get there on the Ragnarok, that was only thanks to modifications overseen by the Loporrits (who have the same powers as the Ancients) and, furthermore, we're told that they could have sent the moon there as well.

And Crowny let me say I appreciate your perspective as well! This has been one of the more enjoyable conversations on this topic and I have a lot of respect for your opinion on it!

Feeling is very much mutual.

(2/2)

[EaraGrace]

Yes it is, because the Plenty's reason for despairing was that they could find no new problems to bring their lives joy. The game wants to conflate "solving all known problems" and "solving all possible problems" as the same thing, and that's a contradiction.

For a society that has existed as long as the Plenty, I think it fair to say solving all known problems is indeed saying solving all possible problems. Meteion describes it as a star without strife where no one even remembered life's trials. Telling them they hadn't actually addressed all their problems would've likely yielded the same responses that she received would it not? After all the inverse would mean concluding that suffering is indeed necessary for joy, and that's a very bitter pill.

Yes they are. The entire point of The Plenty was that they had achieved perfection and thus, could find no new struggles to bring joy to their lives. If the source of their ennui was "we have solved all known problems", then that ennui should have ended the moment they realized that their perfection itself was a problem.

But I don't think they ever realized that. Instead they seemed to insist this was the natural conclusion to things, that they reached the end of life's development. They even mock Meteions "naivety" in trying to find a purpose that would give them a reason to go on. "How could perfection be a problem, its perfection" I could almost hear them say. And honestly, they're not totally wrong. If I said you either get 1000 of bliss and paradise or 1,000,000 years of a lot of suffering with some good as well I think many would choose the former over the latter.

"But they didn't want to do that" is not an valid explanation, in my opinion. To me, that is no different than trying to justify why a cartoon villain monologues instead of shooting the hero with "well, he's just arrogant". How convenient that the characters are irrational when it serves the plot.

I don't think that's cartoony at all though. If the only thing that brought me joy was fixing windows, and I fixed every window so well that none ever broke again, then I can't just go around smashing windows and expect myself to just accept the inherent futility of it all without question right? At some point I would go "hey what's the point of doing this." For the Plenty, who created a life free of suffering and want, turning back the clock would just mean accepting the goal was fruitless in the first place and would mean simply retreading old ground. Why bother? Why go through it again, especially when so much of that journey was painful and unpleasant? The only conclusion one could have is its the journey to perfection that makes life living.

And when I say it like that, them realizing that their "perfection" was the a false promise and turning things back in order to experience the journey again... that kind of sounds like what Venat was saying isn't it?

The reason I brought up time travel is to illustrate how this is a "show, don't tell" issue. Time travel is the direct solution to their problem, but the game does not address it. This also goes into what I said about the Ea's logic only works if you assume the impossibility of new information. Are the Ea basing this conclusion on what they know, or is the story saying that they literally do know everything? If it's the former, "what they know", then the Ea are excluding the possibility that there could ever be any new information. If it's the latter, "they literally do know everything", then we go back into what I said before about the game literally claiming they achieved "perfection" (perfect knowledge in this case). So which is it? Again, the story can't have it both ways.

I think were getting hung up on semantics. To the Ea, a species that spent untold amounts of time exploring existence, and to the story, the functional difference between knowing everything and knowing all that is possible to know is one and the same. If I spent several millennia looking for a new field of study, only to be foiled time after time, I think it would be logical for me to conclude that nothing new is forthcoming. We can say that's not perfect omniscience in the most accurate sense as they can't literally see the future, but we can also say they have no reason to logically believe anything new will be discovered and thus cannot operate on the blind faith that that's not true. The logical conclusion to have when no evidence exists of something is to conclude it doesn't exist after all.

Sure. But one key reason why every scientist on Earth doesn't slit their wrists the moment they conclude the futility and insignificance of human existence is because of the possibility of paradigm shifts. While it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find a way to escape our solar system or galactic arm before the inevitable supernova that claims it, there's still a lot that science cannot predict about the potential of discovery. "Never give up because you don't know what can happen" is literally one of the "correct" solutions that the game touts for overcoming despair, so the possibility of new information is one of the things the game is telling us is correct. That's why I find it so unbelievable that humans have been capable of this for thousands of years and yet it completely perplexed advanced aliens who supposedly solved every problem.

I think its much easier for a species that has a written history stretching only a few millennia to accept not knowing everything then it would be for a species that has existed for far longer. The side quests in Ultima show that "never give up" is something that comes from having hope, which was sorely lacking for quite a while. Feeling you have no real desirable future will do that I think.

"Idiocy" is relative here. These aliens are stated to be infinitely wiser and more advanced than we are currently, but they somehow could not conceive of simple concepts that would save their entire civilization.

I understand that this was likely intended as narrative irony, but it just does not work for me in a similar vein to the aforementioned villain monologuing. It irritates me when intelligent or knowledgeable characters suddenly need to be less so for the plot to work.

I guess I see them with struggling with a fundamental question, why exist? Why live? Time and wisdom help, but they aren't going to answer it.

At the very least, it possibly could have prepared her better. This is something Emet explicitly states when he points out the flaw of Meteion's mission. Hermes built her under the assumption that she would find joyful or at least inspirational emotions and feelings in space, and did not even consider the possibility of the opposite. The shock and trauma of finding it is what drove the Meteia insane.

That and the sheer fact that she didn't find anything that she could've returned to Hermes with. The fact that not a single civilization had a hopeful message to share is... well depressing to say the least.

Also as I said, maybe the Ancients would have found an answer. Maybe they wouldn't have. But they deserved as much warning and chances to find out as the Sundered races did. The only reason why we "didn't go to the moon" (as you put it) is because we received 12,000 years of warnings from Hydaelyn. Remove vital things like her giving us the Elpis flower, her helping people (including the WOL) get the Echo, her creating the moon, her creating the Loporrits, her giving us Meteion's exactly location, and modern Sundered races would have been as screwed as the Ancients, who she did not give nearly as much warning to.

What I think is important to point out is that the Sundered and the Ancients are not so distinct as to separate them completely. Venat believed humanity could find an answer, but would only do so if denied the easy path to paradise. I fully agree that if the Sundered had Zodiark answering their prayers they'd be as doomed as the Ancients. But they didn't, because of the Sundering and Venats/her groups efforts. Therein lies why she did what she did. Not because the Sundered were inherently more virtuous, but because they were denied the wings the Ancients had. They would have to walk to paradise, and in so doing face despair.

And like I said before the idea that the Ancients "rejected the idea of suffering" is not something that is backed up by their society as we see it.

This also ties into other points you raised: the Ancients CAN manipulate Dynamis. Or, rather, they can create familiars that can. If they couldn't, Meteion wouldn't exist. Furthermore, they also could have gotten to Ultima Thule. Though we get there on the Ragnarok, that was only thanks to modifications overseen by the Loporrits (who have the same powers as the Ancients) and, furthermore, we're told that they could have sent the moon there as well.

I fully believe the Ancients could reach Ultima, but actually standing their and facing Meteion is another matter. Creating a familiar whose purpose is to fight in your stead I think would be logical, until the moment they realize they were made to suffer and now are facing despair for those selfsame masters. I'm having Nier flashbacks imagining the outcome tbh lol

[CrownySuccubus]

Telling them they hadn't actually addressed all their problems would've likely yielded the same responses that she received would it not? After all the inverse would mean concluding that suffering is indeed necessary for joy, and that's a very bitter pill.

That's not what the story implies. It doesn't sound like they were so haughty that they merely thought future problems were impossible; even Meteion herself claims they actually, objectively, eliminated all such problems. But when Meteion asked them "Okay, so what's next?" they were confused and had no answer, and thus they began to see perfection itself as a problem. So this again goes into the contradiction

But I don't think they ever realized that. Instead they seemed to insist this was the natural conclusion to things, that they reached the end of life's development. They even mock Meteions "naivety" in trying to find a purpose that would give them a reason to go on. "How could perfection be a problem, its perfection" I could almost hear them say. And honestly, they're not totally wrong. If I said you either get 1000 of bliss and paradise or 1,000,000 years of a lot of suffering with some good as well I think many would choose the former over the latter.

But this again raises the semantic issue I mentioned before: there are lots of ways to define "perfection", and one of those ways to define it is to eliminate any POSSIBLE form of suffering or despair. That definition is clearly not what the Plenty did, if all it took was Meteion asking questions for them to fall into suffering and despair.

I don't think that's cartoony at all though. If the only thing that brought me joy was fixing windows, and I fixed every window so well that none ever broke again, then I can't just go around smashing windows and expect myself to just accept the inherent futility of it all without question right? At some point I would go "hey what's the point of doing this." For the Plenty, who created a life free of suffering and want, turning back the clock would just mean accepting the goal was fruitless in the first place and would mean simply retreading old ground. Why bother?

I mean...not really?

This is literally what games, sports and competition are. They are simply arbitrary tasks with rules which provide added steps or challenge, or allow two people to see who can complete the task better. If that gets too easy, then we simply tack on new rules and restrictions to make it harder. For example: the thousands of variations of chess created by people who feel that normal chess is just too easy.

Plus, the fact that the Plenty existed at roughly the same time that the Ancients did means that the two civilizations definitely could have communicated and collaborated with each other. The idea that the people of the Plenty wanted to live lives of only joy and did absolutely nothing to create sources of it is just...headscratching to say the least.

(1/2)

[CrownySuccubus]

I think were getting hung up on semantics.

Writers can't throw out a concept like "perfection" and then be unconcerned with the semantics. That's the entire issue here. "We achieved perfection / Eliminated all problems" falls apart when you have to actually think about what that means. Thus, it becomes a "Tell instead of Show" problem.

I think its much easier for a species that has a written history stretching only a few millennia to accept not knowing everything then it would be for a species that has existed for far longer.

I guess I see them with struggling with a fundamental question, why exist? Why live? Time and wisdom help, but they aren't going to answer it.

I don't accept that, because it is unfeasible that any species that has been around so long, and made achievements that we can only dream of, would not have thought about questions that we were already pondering back when we still pooped in rivers. Again, it reminds me of the aliens from the film Signs who mastered interstellar travel but couldn't figure out how to get past a wood door.

But That and the sheer fact that she didn't find anything that she could've returned to Hermes with. The fact that not a single civilization had a hopeful message to share is... well depressing to say the least.

It's also pretty damn improbable, in my estimation.

What I think is important to point out is that the Sundered and the Ancients are not so distinct as to separate them completely. Venat believed humanity could find an answer, but would only do so if denied the easy path to paradise.

Yeah, this is the fundamental issue where Endwalker's themes rub me the wrong way: I don't believe that "post-scarity" or "post-struggle" make people inherently weak, flawed or lesser. One elephant in the room I think I need to mention here is the Japanese ideal that "effort = good", which is not a philosophical ideal I agree with (and, when you start looking at it in wider context, is often flat out oppressive/abusive).

I fully believe the Ancients could reach Ultima, but actually standing their and facing Meteion is another matter. Creating a familiar whose purpose is to fight in your stead I think would be logical, until the moment they realize they were made to suffer and now are facing despair for those selfsame masters. I'm having Nier flashbacks imagining the outcome tbh lol

Again, it's quite possible they would have failed. I simply do not agree with the fact that one person thought it was her job to decide for them.

(2/2)

[EaraGrace]

That's not what the story implies. It doesn't sound like they were so haughty that they merely thought future problems were impossible; even Meteion herself claims they actually, objectively, eliminated all such problems. But when Meteion asked them "Okay, so what's next?" they were confused and had no answer, and thus they began to see perfection itself as a problem. So this again goes into the contradiction

My interpretation of that interaction is quite different. Looking at the exact quotes of Meteions descriptions of the various civilizations she never describes them as perfect, nor does anyone but the civilizations themselves do so. And they were very haughty.

There was a time when we were lesser, and in our nescience sought purpose-struggled to justify life's worth. That was, of course, before we achieved perfection. Now, condemned to our paradise, we understand the fatuity of existence. Like the fledglings we once were, the poor bird could not accept the truth. It asked us again and again-hoping, perhaps, our answer might change.

They were done with life.

But this again raises the semantic issue I mentioned before: there are lots of ways to define "perfection", and one of those ways to define it is to eliminate any POSSIBLE form of suffering or despair. That definition is clearly not what the Plenty did, if all it took was Meteion asking questions for them to fall into suffering and despair.

I know many have said that Meteions questions were what ended the Plenty, but looking back through essences I don't see where that was said. As I quoted, their answer never changed. And let me ask this. If your society is based on eliminating all possible forms of suffering, and after reaching what you feel is enlightenment you come to find that ennui and apathy are so burdensome as to breed despair, would you not logically conclude that it is then life that's the problem? Would not ending your existence achieve the goal you desire?

I mean...not really?

This is literally what games, sports and competition are. They are simply arbitrary tasks with rules which provide added steps or challenge, or allow two people to see who can complete the task better. If that gets too easy, then we simply tack on new rules and restrictions to make it harder. For example: the thousands of variations of chess created by people who feel that normal chess is just too easy.

Plus, the fact that the Plenty existed at roughly the same time that the Ancients did means that the two civilizations definitely could have communicated and collaborated with each other. The idea that the people of the Plenty wanted to live lives of only joy and did absolutely nothing to create sources of it is just...headscratching to say the least.

That works for games but were talking purpose in life. There's a reason that Absurdism uses Sisyphus as an example, and encourages us all to call life what it is, absurd. That concept, of living just to push a boulder up a hill and watching it roll down, is depressing as all hell. I wouldn't hold it against anyone who comes to believe that life is an arbitrary game for asking "whats the point?" Not to mention the only one who showed any interest in planets beyond their own was Hermes, and he did so out of dissatisfaction and a belief that the Ancient world was flawed. Them not doing so I think perfectly fits with them believing themselves perfection incarnate.

Writers can't throw out a concept like "perfection" and then be unconcerned with the semantics. That's the entire issue here. "We achieved perfection / Eliminated all problems" falls apart when you have to actually think about what that means. Thus, it becomes a "Tell instead of Show" problem.

Then look to who is saying they are actually perfect. The civilizations themselves describe themselves that way, as do the Ancients. Meteion doesn't, the Scions don't, Venat doesn't. All because they recognized reaching perfection is not possible. They can eliminate all known forms of suffering, or reach the end of the tech tree, but if they kill themselves at the end it doesn't actually hold true that they are perfect. I think you and I are closer on this than we appear, its just where you see contradiction I see part of the core message. There is no perfection, just different paths that all lead to Dead Ends. They may have saw the path to its end, but perfection was never in the cards to reach.

I don't accept that, because it is unfeasible that any species that has been around so long, and made achievements that we can only dream of, would not have thought about questions that we were already pondering back when we still pooped in rivers. Again, it reminds me of the aliens from the film Signs who mastered interstellar travel but couldn't figure out how to get past a wood door.

It's also pretty damn improbable, in my estimation.

But that's precisely because you feel you have so much to live for. The beings of the Plenty would chuckle at our attempts for meaning, the Ea would decry our lack of scientific knowledge to comprehend the gravity of their discoveries, the Omicron would view us as too low and weak to care about, and the Ancients would look in horror at our short miserable lives.

Again, why exist for the sake of it? If you've seen all you can, done all you can, then why bother. Why linger in "enlightenment?"

And on the matter of whether is realistic for them to be asking the same question, I think the fact that thinkers millennia old still dominate philosophy would suggest that it is indeed probable they would ask the same questions. Hell Kant and Mills are centuries old and they represent a debate that still rages to this day.

Yeah, this is the fundamental issue where Endwalker's themes rub me the wrong way: I don't believe that "post-scarity" or "post-struggle" make people inherently weak, flawed or lesser. One elephant in the room I think I need to mention here is the Japanese ideal that "effort = good", which is not a philosophical ideal I agree with (and, when you start looking at it in wider context, is often flat out oppressive/abusive).



Again, it's quite possible they would have failed. I simply do not agree with the fact that one person thought it was her job to decide for them.

I think all societies have flaws, every paradise has its shadows, and by accepting that also accepting that we will never create perfection from imperfection. And that's ok. We don't need perfection, nor do I need suffering to disappear for my own existence to be worth it. Again, this isn't a moral condemnation. If I was asked to surrender much of life's amenities to help save the world, I'd feel sad and upset, for good reason! The point of the message isn't to say "oh you are just too weak because of those things," but instead that life even without those is still worth fighting for. Life inevitably requires us to suffer and sacrifice in order to bring about a better future. No matter what I build, it will crumble to dust along with everything I hoped and dreamed. And that doesn't change the fact that it was worth it.

The Ancients weren't incapable of accepting that, Venat and her group's sacrifice proves that. But the question is whether the world the Ancients built made it possible for them as a whole to move forward, whether they themselves would choose to live. And they didn't. Where they went wrong was choosing to avoid suffering in favor of inflicting it on others. They chose to sacrifice that future life in order to see their pain end and return the world to exactly what it was, and for that the Sundering was made necessary. In choosing to trade future life for their own, they made themselves weak. Venat, when she moved to create Hydaelyn, was not doing so on the belief that humanity was weak; just the opposite, she did so thinking humanity was strong and must be so in order to survive this calamity. And so she forced them to face that. Looking at the other options: sending a familiar, a limited sundering, having Zodiark simply fight Meteion, each one is fatally flawed and ultimately would fail to the answer the question. Remember, our victory in Ultima Thule was not purely a test of martial prowess, but a debate between us and Meteion. We won by teaching her a brighter melody, because no other way would stop Meteion. Once that becomes clear, it also becomes clear what is needed is for life to face the question of despair and oblivion head on.

And on the matter of deciding for them, I once again believe that the decision to move ahead with the third sacrifice was that answer. I can understand why others don’t agree, but to me telling the traumatized Ancients and the souls held in Zodiark would, in Venats words, cause the situation to spiral even further out of control. Faced with a now hostile Hermes and the remains of society thrown back into the depths of despair, the situation would be even worse. Whether that is an acceptable reason is up to the individual, but let me ask this question.

If she had told them and they still decided on the course they were on, would that change what she needed to do?