On Venat's Role in the Story

[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?