On Venat's Role in the Story

[Veloran]

There's no discussion of 'living' or 'dying' here, so I don't know where you got that from.

'Bleak as the contents of Meteion's report might be, many could hear it and remain content with their lives.

I think you're being disingenuous if you're really arguing that the above section is honestly misquoted in the statement of "Venat specifically says that most of the Ancient population would be able to cope with the knowledge of a dead, meaningless universe." At best, we could have a semantics argument of the meaning of "most" versus "many" in the context of the entire Ancient population, but that's just reaching for the sake of it.

What I find truly mysterious is that you've chosen to rely on Venat's judgement to try to establish the Amaurotians' resilience, when you've already spent so much time and effort trying to prove that her judgement is questionable.

It was an example to highlight the idea.

Yes, which is literally a buddhist argument. Buddhism's entire core belief is that life is suffering. Mankind, in Buddhist purview, is the only form of life capable of reaching enlightenment because they are the only ones who know can know suffering. In Buddhism, even Deva and Asura (their deities) cannot escape dukkha (suffering) specifically because their lives are so blissful that they don't understand it.

This is an aside, but I'll continue to argue that the values Endwalker espouses on this topic is very much non-Buddhist. The highest value and ideal in Buddhism is reaching a state of Nirvana, non-existence, and escaping the cycle of reincarnation and the suffering of existence. If anything making this Meteion's end-goal and having it defeated with the argument that life and suffering is better is an outright anti-Buddhist philosophy.

[EaraGrace]

There's nothing about the context that changes what Venat said. Venat said two things:

1) Some people may react badly to hearing Hermes' report. Others may not.

2) Hermes is one of the people who will react badly to the news.

The Final Days changes nothing. The same fact is true now as it was then. The only real difference is that now, thanks to Hermes, nobody will know WHY the Final Days are happening, but it will happen nonetheless. Again, her statement is that the report cannot become common knowledge because some people will not be able to handle the news, and Hermes himself almost certainly would not.

Whether or not the "Final Days" is a bad time for an existential crisis is irrelevant, because the existential doom is going to happen regardless. However harsh the truth is, though, that truth is the ONLY way that anyone has a prayer of stopping the Final Days outside of Zodiark. The ONLY reason you could have for not revealing the truth is to ensure that the current timeline goes on the same course as the one before, which Venat basically admits to.

So no, it changes absolutely nothing.

I think we’re vastly downplaying the rest of Meteions report, which changed everything for those involved. Hermes breaks and decides to “test” humanity, Emet and Hyth both agree to sacrifice their memories in order to ensure we can escape knowing there is now a real possibility that their civilization is doomed, and Venat is obviously affected by the revelation as she even looks at the stars and wonders if there’s really no other star that sees the beauty of life, which is the most doubt we see her show.

Add in the effects the Final Days would have and I think it would be clear that a reassessment is needed.

What also tends to cause panic is the world blowing up and not knowing why.

See, this is my problem with Endwalker. It assumes all of humanity has a functionally anti-buddhist mentality to existential dread.

I’d say humanity does struggle with that. Buddhism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Absurdism, Anti-Natalism, Existential Pessimism, none of these are exactly cheery worldviews.

[Lyth]

I personally have no issue with a touch of an existential worry, outside of time periods where doing so activates mass grue summoning. Awareness of the ephemeral nature of life makes you recognize how precious it is. Most of the time we take it for granted.

????

'To be content with one's life' is a common English idiom. It doesn't actually have anything to do with death or spontaneous combustion, perish the thought! It simply means to be happy with what you have. This is also an example of why context matters.

You know, if it makes you feel better, I can pretend that I didn't see you say what you said. It's not like misremembering a quote is a big deal. I do it all the time, which is why I have a habit of cross-checking things where possible, even when it's a quote that I've cited a few times. I really don't think less of you for it.

As an aside, any time you feel the need to use the word 'disingenuous' to try to win a debate, stop and ask yourself this: "If I instead typed the words 'You Liar!' right now, would it make my argument more convincing?" If it wasn't an effective rhetorical tool back in primary school, it probably still isn't now. You might also pass that on to those lost souls over from Ultima Thule, if you see them lurking over here.

Edit:

...

I was trying to figure out who 'Caelum' was in this Kitzuya post that you quoted and fortunately snapshotted before they quickly edited it out, but I just realized that it was actually Lauront. Amusing.

[CrownySuccubus]

Oh, I see the issue. I don't believe the ancients are "humanity" they are essentially - the Deva and Asura, incapable of escpaing suffering because thier lives were too blissful to meaningfully understand it. They would have become like the Plenty - at least that's what Venat believes.

In this view, Venat is essentially creating a mankind that is capable of escaping suffering by sundering the ancient dieties into mortals.

As I said, this is a Buddhist mindset, and it's ultimately, why I personally could not follow Buddhism, nor ignore some of its more problematic/harmful inferences. But more on that when I respond to Eara.

This is an aside, but I'll continue to argue that the values Endwalker espouses on this topic is very much non-Buddhist. The highest value and ideal in Buddhism is reaching a state of Nirvana, non-existence, and escaping the cycle of reincarnation and the suffering of existence. If anything making this Meteion's end-goal and having it defeated with the argument that life and suffering is better is an outright anti-Buddhist philosophy.

You're misunderstanding/oversimplifying the concept of "non-existence" in Buddhism. Nirvana is not simply oblivion. It is rejoining/becoming one with the universe as a perfect, whole entity free of weakness like the Buddha himself. For example, one can look at the portrayal of the Buddha in Journey to the West -- when Son Wukong is challenged to jump from one end of the universe to the other to try and escape the Buddha, Wukong pretty much lands the exact same place he started and realizes that the Buddha IS the universe. "Non-existence" in Nirvana does NOT mean sheer oblivion.

This version of "non-existence" is present in the concept of the Aetherial Sea, where souls are supposed to go (at least on Etheirys) after death.

You can't even pin the terminology down as being exclusively Buddhist because of its close historical ties both Hinduism and Vedantic philosophy in general, which is also where Akasha originates from.

That's hardly relevant, since Buddhism started as an offshoot of Hinduism, and thus the two share most of their terminology. Besides that, the "akasha" in game is nothing like the akasha in Hinduism aside from vaguely being "energy". It's very much an "in-name-only" reference, much like the Greek names and undertones of the Ancients.

This is also a fairly standard convention in time travel writing in general..

Every story has its own rules for time travel in place. And Shadowbringers made it clear that you can tell people about an alternate future and create a branching timeline.

You're also making a false equivalence here, but this should be self-explanatory to anyone reading your post. These are not independent variables. More specifically, if you don't think that Venat's judgements on the Amaurotians are reliable, then why are you trying to use them to defend your point?

Once again: "if the murderer says he killed his wife in self defense after he took out an insurance policy on her, then why do you believe him about the insurance policy and not the self defense"?

The point, once again, is that her logic is unsound even IF we took it at face value.

Add in the effects the Final Days would have and I think it would be clear that a reassessment is needed.

Again, not really. If anything, the Final Days only made the report that much more important to make public.

I’d say humanity does struggle with that. Buddhism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Absurdism, Anti-Natalism, Existential Pessimism, none of these are exactly cheery worldviews.

The point being made is that we do not all react to them with the same uniformity that the game likes to portray.

As someone struggling with mental health and depression said on Reddit, one of the main problematic aspects of Endwalker is that if the Final Days happened right now, it implies everyone struggling with mental illness and clinical depression would almost instantly turn into a blasphemy while the "strong minded" would survive and thrive. As I've mentioned before, Endwalker's worldview is decidedly social darwinist.

[redheadturk]

Oh, I see the issue. I don't believe the ancients are "humanity" they are essentially - the Deva and Asura, incapable of escpaing suffering because thier lives were too blissful to meaningfully understand it. They would have become like the Plenty - at least that's what Venat believes.

In this view, Venat is essentially creating a mankind that is capable of escaping suffering by sundering the ancient dieties into mortals.

Venat as a god is responsible for the world we live in, she had faith in us, and comparatively little faith in her fellow ancients. I think condemning her for that is as meaningful as condemning Prometheus for betraying Zeus and giving fire to humanity. I guess that's where I'm struggling with this discussion, yes - you can argue that Venat did a wrong to her fellow ancients, she would even agree with you. So what?

Nah, the ancients are humanity, only longer lived exponentially than sundered humanity. Being longer lived and having access to magicks that due to the lessened aetheric density the sundered could not even dream of does not make them any less human. They laugh, they love, they grieve their losses just like any other human being. What happened to them was a tragedy that if Venat had not been dishonest did not need to happen

Edit to add: Ya know, your kind of thinking is sorta why mutants in X men were othered and treated so badly. People considered them "not human" so they felt it gave them every right to discriminate against them.

[KariTheFox]

Nah, the ancients are humanity, only longer lived exponentially than sundered humanity. Being longer lived and having access to magicks that due to the lessened aetheric density the sundered could not even dream of does not make them any less human. They laugh, they love, they grieve their losses just like any other human being. What happened to them was a tragedy that if Venat had not been dishonest did not need to happen

Plenty of mythology - particuarly the Greek mythology that the Ancients draw from are full of gods with strong emotions - who do laugh, love and feel grief. But there is still a dividing line between the what is divine and what is mortal. That's what I mean when I say they're "not humanity".

An ancient would never go hungry, never be without shelter, never fear for thier own mortality. They are gods with the power of creation at thier beck and call.

And just like gods, they believed themselves able to judge creation - all of them, Emet-Selch, Hermes, and Venat all believed thier course was the right one.

Really, "one god killed all the others and used thier bones to forge many other worlds" sounds like it's ripped from mythology. I don't see the point in condemning it, what's done is done. She had her reasons and in the end, she won.

[redheadturk]

Plenty of mythology - particuarly the Greek mythology that the Ancients draw from are full of gods with strong emotions - who do laugh, love and feel grief. But there is still a dividing line between the what is divine and what is mortal. That's what I mean when I say they're "not humanity".

An ancient would never go hungry, never be without shelter, never fear for thier own mortality. They are gods with the power of creation at thier beck and call.

And just like gods, they believed themselves able to judge creation - all of them, Emet-Selch, Hermes, and Venat all believed thier course was the right one.

Really, "one god killed all the others and used thier bones to forge many other worlds" sounds like it's ripped from mythology. I don't see the point in condemning it, what's done is done. She had her reasons and in the end, she won.

Her reasons were bullshit, and people have every right to take issue with that shit. And they only do not know hunger because they tamed the wilderness their world once was due to discovering creation magics. Such is even stated in Elpis.

Edit to add: They aren't gods, the mutants of Xmen are actually a closer analog.

[KizuyaKatogami]

.

Really, "one god killed all the others and used thier bones to forge many other worlds" sounds like it's ripped from mythology. I don't see the point in condemning it, what's done is done. She had her reasons and in the end, she won.

It doesn’t matter if she “had her reasons.” Her reasons, as we’ve seen are much like herself: Flawed. Yes people will and should condemn it. The funny thing is, you have condemned Emet for far worse yet with Venat all of a sudden it’s “genocide is okay when pretty lady does it.” The fact that the exact thing she did is frowned upon by the scions is testament enough.
Alphinaud once said in Shadowbringers that living in a Rejoined world would be against his beliefs, saying, "But what value is there in surviving when all our history, all our struggles will be erased? I cannot conscience such an act."

So he cannot conscience such an act. Well guess who actually went through with something like that? Oh right Venat.

[KariTheFox]

For the millionth time, I am perfectly willing to agree that Venat did a bad thing to her fellow ancients. Her act killed them all. They're dead. My question is so what about it?

Where is this pointless, circular discussion that has been going on for months leading? Okay - Venat bad. Venat genocided the ancients, they're dead because of her choices and actions. Are we going to spend the next six months belaboring this point? Or do you actually want to move the discussion to something - anything else. The people who don't like her have condemned her, and the people who do have pointed out that she had believable reasons and motivations.

[CrownySuccubus]

The people who don't like her have condemned her, and the people who do have pointed out that she had believable reasons and motivations.

This part in bold is disingenuous loaded language.

The people who do not like Venat's actions in the story emphatically deny that the people who like her have "pointed out" any such thing. Do her supporters personally think her reasons and motivations are believable? Sure they do. But you can't argue that said things were "pointed out" when the deniers' entire argument is that there IS nothing to point out.

It's like saying "People who believe in hard science have condemned Flat Earth theory, and Flat Earthers have pointed out their proof that the Earth is flat".