Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[EaraGrace]

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

It’s bad when the choice you have is between killing yourself or letting go of paradise.. Which is what happens when there’s nothing left to build, nothing new to experience and nowhere that brings you joy. Live long enough and everything will lose its luster. What does a dog do when it’s caught the car?

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing. The theme of the game is a massive Perfect Solution Fallacy: "perfection is impossible, so don't bother".

You’re misrepresenting their statement. They don’t equate perfection with progress, they say that living beings incorrectly associate perfection with progress, and in so doing create their own demise.

Further, Cookingway then immediately states that perfection is impossible, ala the “immaculate carrot.” How is it logical to interpret Cookingways message as saying perfection is possible and bad, when he directly states that perfection is a paradox?

Once again, Endwalkers message is only contradictory if you believe that a group of civilizations that killed themselves because of the worlds they made can be called “perfect.”

Sadly, you don't have to be a psychopath or a sociopath to glorify or celebrate the suffering of yourself or others. For example, there's a lot of mainstream worldviews which readily see forcing oneself or others to struggle, suffer or even die as being good and any attempt to lessen or stop them as being inherently bad.

I don’t have to see struggle as a good thing and still believe it necessary for good to flourish. Winning at a competition only feels good if you know you could’ve lost. Is losing a bad thing? I’d say so.

[CrownySuccubus]

You’re misrepresenting their statement. They don’t equate perfection with progress, they say that living beings incorrectly associate perfection with progress, and in so doing create their own demise.

Once again, Endwalkers message is only contradictory if you believe that a group of civilizations that killed themselves because of the worlds they made can be called “perfect.”

Except that Cookingway also states: "Once a civilization has fulfilled the basic requirements for survival, it will inevitably seek to eliminate all forms of negativity and achieve perfection."

Cookingway describes post-scarcity > progress > desiring perfection as an inevitable slippery slope. Furthermore, his solution to this is to "be content with what we have and to make the most of it". At best, this argument is extremely reductive as it deemphasizes progress as the ideal middle ground between "scarcity" and "perfection". At worst, it's a total Perfect Solution Fallacy where the answer is to not try at all.

Further, Cookingway then immediately states that perfection is impossible, ala the “immaculate carrot.” How is it logical to interpret Cookingways message as saying perfection is possible and bad, when he directly states that perfection is a paradox?

Because Cookingway's argument still sets up the Ancients as achieving part of the infinite perfection.

Cookingway: "They learned all there is to learn about the nature of sentient life and the fates of the stars themselves."

Cookingway uses the exact same argument that the rest of the story uses for Ea and Deka-hepta ("The Plenty"): that they achieved some sort of "infinite". The Ancients apparently "learned all there is to know", the Ea created a society and form that was timeless, and the Plenty eliminated all forms of sorrow and strife. These are absolute, infinite statements that even those critical of said civilizations agree to -- so for all intents and purposes, we have to assume that these are objectively true. Especially for the Plenty, because their infinite achievement (that all sorrow and strife were gone) is literally the basis for why they died.

I predict that the next argument is going to be "Okay, they may have achieved perfection in ONE area, but that doesn't mean all-around perfection", which is exactly the problem. If you say that civilization has learned or eliminated ALL of something abstract (like knowledge or "sorrow"), that is still an infinite value (aka perfection). An abstract, by definition, is something which avoid strict definition because it can change or radically shift based on understanding. But if you learned or eliminated "all" of it, then those changes or shifts don't matter, because those changes and shifts are either part of the "all" or they aren't. It doesn't matter what other areas they didn't understand or perfect -- even if that is simply a "tiny" amount, one one-billionth of infinity is still infinity.

The Ancients (according to Cookingway) had attained perfect ("all") knowledge in their areas, and the Plenty (according to Meteion) achieved perfect elimination of sorrow and strife. How specific these are is irrelevant, because I remind you that "all" and "perfect" are infinite. They either did this or they didn't. If you place hard limits on "perfection", then it ceases to BE perfection. If perfection is impossible, then saying they "learned all" or "eliminated all" of an abstract (even if it's a specific abstract) is nonsense.

"But they only achieved perfection in what they knew". Then the terms "all' and "perfection" are useless. By this logic, ALL progress of any kind is "perfection". The iPhone X was "perfection", until it got replaced by the next model. Medical science was "perfect" when people used bloodletting and leeches, and now it's "perfect" again in 2022. I repeat: the story wants to conflate and blur the concept of perfection to both Meaning 1 (The best we're capable of right now) and Meaning 2 (The best anyone will ever be capable of, without flaw, forever.).

I don’t have to see struggle as a good thing and still believe it necessary for good to flourish. Winning at a competition only feels good if you know you could’ve lost. Is losing a bad thing? I’d say so.

This argument only works if you think everything is a competition. I don't want to have to win a foot race to get insulin for my beloved family member to live. Sure, I'd feel great if I won, and feel bad if I lost, but that kinda feels like an unhealthy quality of life to strive for.

I know it's been a few months, but have we really forgotten Y'shtola's response to the Ea? Or are we just ignoring it because it doesn't fit the narrative we want to push about the narrative being pushed?

What ABOUT her response to the Ea?

As you yourself said, the subject matter is beyond my comprehension. And that, I accept, is true. I do not possess the knowledge to prove or disprove your conclusion. In my mortal years, I doubt that I could even approach the wisdom of the Ea. But of one thing I am absolutely certain: I would not be happier in ignorance.

The most important lesson I've learned... is that learning isn't simply passing one's eyes over words. Nay... 'tis when understood for oneself that knowledge attains its true value. And that is what has sustained me. Driven me onward in joy and wonder, in anger and sorrow. The universe may end, and may all be for naught. But I will live as I always have.

I will always seek out new knowledge. And no conclusion of yours, no matter how grim, can dampen my desire.

She flat out states that she doesn't think they're wrong. Her response of "I don't care" at best sidesteps the real fallacy of the Ea's argument.

[Brinne]

That part with Y'shtola, and her answer being framed as valid and heroic, always seemed hilarious to me in context of everything else. I just imagine the equivalent scene with the Ancients, with Venat outright saying to them, "Listen to me, I can confirm this through hearing reports from other stars! Continuing to pursue perfection will only lead to our destruction and ruin! It happened to them and it will happen to you!" and getting the answer "We don't care, lmao." And Venat immediately melts, defeated.

Endwalker really feels like it has no idea what it's even trying to say no small amount of the time.

[CrownySuccubus]

That part with Y'shtola, and her answer being framed as valid and heroic, always seemed hilarious to me in context of everything else. I just imagine the equivalent scene with the Ancients, with Venat outright saying to them, "Listen to me, I can confirm this through hearing reports from other stars! Continuing to pursue perfection will only lead to our destruction and ruin! It happened to them and it will happen to you!" and getting the answer "We don't care, lmao." And Venat immediately melts, defeated.

Endwalker really feels like it has no idea what it's even trying to say no small amount of the time.

Just to play devil's advocate...

I think the argument the game was making was that "knowledge for one's own self-satisfaction is fine, but desiring 'perfect, eternal knowledge' is self-destructive".

But, of course, this leads to the same question: where is the magical line between the two?

[EaraGrace]

Except that Cookingway also states: "Once a civilization has fulfilled the basic requirements for survival, it will inevitably seek to eliminate all forms of negativity and achieve perfection."

Cookingway describes post-scarcity > progress > desiring perfection as an inevitable slippery slope. Furthermore, his solution to this is to "be content with what we have and to make the most of it". At best, this argument is extremely reductive as it deemphasizes progress as the ideal middle ground between "scarcity" and "perfection". At worst, it's a total Perfect Solution Fallacy where the answer is to not try at all.

But once again I think you’re unfairly focusing too much in the beginning of Cookingways statement and not the whole! “Making the most of it” contains more than enough room to encapsulate efforts to improve the world around you, so long as you do so knowing it will never be perfect.

It’s a theme that is further reinforced by Hydaelyns discussion with the Scions, where she specifically highlights how, despite some of their dreams being impossible they still carry on regardless knowing it will never be.

Because Cookingway's argument still sets up the Ancients as achieving part of the infinite perfection.

Cookingway: "They learned all there is to learn about the nature of sentient life and the fates of the stars themselves."

Cookingway uses the exact same argument that the rest of the story uses for Ea and Deka-hepta ("The Plenty"): that they achieved some sort of "infinite". The Ancients apparently "learned all there is to know", the Ea created a society and form that was timeless, and the Plenty eliminated all forms of sorrow and strife. These are absolute, infinite statements that even those critical of said civilizations agree to -- so for all intents and purposes, we have to assume that these are objectively true. Especially for the Plenty, because their infinite achievement (that all sorrow and strife were gone) is literally the basis for why they died.

But none of those things are objective statements of perfection. Knowing all there is to know doesn’t make your society perfect, nor does eliminating sorrow.

I predict that the next argument is going to be "Okay, they may have achieved perfection in ONE area, but that doesn't mean all-around perfection", which is exactly the problem. If you say that civilization has learned or eliminated ALL of something abstract (like knowledge or "sorrow"), that is still an infinite value (aka perfection). An abstract, by definition, is something which avoid strict definition because it can change or radically shift based on understanding. But if you learned or eliminated "all" of it, then those changes or shifts don't matter, because those changes and shifts are either part of the "all" or they aren't. It doesn't matter what other areas they didn't understand or perfect -- even if that is simply a "tiny" amount, one one-billionth of infinity is still infinity.

That’s not my point though. Once again the paradox that is perfection means that any physical manifestation of it in an imperfect reality is flawed. Congrats you eliminated “all” of your grief and sorrow. And now you wanna kill yourself. If that’s what seeking perfection means then why seek it? That is the core of dilemma with the Dead Ends.

The Ancients (according to Cookingway) had attained perfect ("all") knowledge in their areas, and the Plenty (according to Meteion) achieved perfect elimination of sorrow and strife. How specific these are is irrelevant, because I remind you that "all" and "perfect" are infinite. They either did this or they didn't. If you place hard limits on "perfection", then it ceases to BE perfection. If perfection is impossible, then saying they "learned all" or "eliminated all" of an abstract (even if it's a specific abstract) is nonsense.

Is it possible to draw a perfect circle? Or calculate all digits of pi? Is the very concept of doing such nonsense too?

"But they only achieved perfection in what they knew". Then the terms "all' and "perfection" are useless. By this logic, ALL progress of any kind is "perfection". The iPhone X was "perfection", until it got replaced by the next model. Medical science was "perfect" when people used bloodletting and leeches, and now it's "perfect" again in 2022. I repeat: the story wants to conflate and blur the concept of perfection to both Meaning 1 (The best we're capable of right now) and Meaning 2 (The best anyone will ever be capable of, without flaw, forever.).

Or the game is saying meaning 2 and holding that what we are capable of is limited by the imperfect existence we inhabit.

This argument only works if you think everything is a competition. I don't want to have to win a foot race to get insulin for my beloved family member to live. Sure, I'd feel great if I won, and feel bad if I lost, but that kinda feels like an unhealthy quality of life to strive for.

I’m using the competition metaphor to show that suffering in some form can beneficial. As a hypothetical, if you could choose between a world with no inequality or a world with some, but everyone is better off than those in the first world, which would you choose?

What ABOUT her response to the Ea?

She flat out states that she doesn't think they're wrong. Her response of "I don't care" at best sidesteps the real fallacy of the Ea's argument.

What fallacy? The Ea are the dog that caught the car and didn’t know what to do with themselves. Y’shtola basically just “yeah I’ll find another car ti chase then.”

[Iscah]

But once again I think you’re unfairly focusing too much in the beginning of Cookingways statement and not the whole! “Making the most of it” contains more than enough room to encapsulate efforts to improve the world around you, so long as you do so knowing it will never be perfect.

It’s a theme that is further reinforced by Hydaelyns discussion with the Scions, where she specifically highlights how, despite some of their dreams being impossible they still carry on regardless knowing it will never be.

That's ultimately the problem here. On its own, the philosophy of "we can never get to perfection but we should keep striving for the best outcome we can" is fine, and it's what the story has been running on up to this point.

The problem here is when they also try to have this story element of "look at these people who kept striving until they did reach what they believe to be perfection! It invariably turned out to be their undoing and their whole society collapsed!"

So where is the dividing line? Where should we keep trying, and where should we stop because our idea of creating a good world for people might actually be just as flawed and lead to similar disaster?

It's a proposal that undermines the positive affirmation that the other half of the story is trying to tell. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the narrative sabotages itself.

I enjoyed Endwalker for the immediate things it did with the Scions and main cast, but the philosophical aspects are a complete mess at a base concept level before you even start to untangle the morality of characters like Venat.

[Tehmon]

That's ultimately the problem here. On its own, the philosophy of "we can never get to perfection but we should keep striving for the best outcome we can" is fine, and it's what the story has been running on up to this point.

The problem here is when they also try to have this story element of "look at these people who kept striving until they did reach what they believe to be perfection! It invariably turned out to be their undoing and their whole society collapsed!"

So where is the dividing line? Where should we keep trying, and where should we stop because our idea of creating a good world for people might actually be just as flawed and lead to similar disaster?

It's a proposal that undermines the positive affirmation that the other half of the story is trying to tell. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the narrative sabotages itself.

I enjoyed Endwalker for the immediate things it did with the Scions and main cast, but the philosophical aspects are a complete mess at a base concept level before you even start to untangle the morality of characters like Venat.

I do not see any problem here, on the contrary I find it quite fascinating. Ultimately the sundered mankind will never reach perfection, our mortality and diversity in thought, ideology and culture will not allow it. That is why the idea that our strives for peace and comfort are in vain as we will ultimately reach a point of perfection, where we will meet our ultimate demise, doesn't sound truthful or plausible. But we are talking about mankind in the Source, and while this might be true to our existence, it might not be so for other civilizations across the vast universe who have, in their culture, reached a point of perfection from their perspective. I'm not sure that Venat ever meant to imply that her philosophy would ring true to all of existence.

Will we ever truly reach the dividing line? I doubt it, because the vast amount of different perspectives will disagree on where that line between good life and perfection that leads to collapse exists. Even the concept of '' life that is as good as it can be without the threat of what an utopia and perfection would cause to our civilization '' would vary from person to person, or at least from culture to culture.

[Brinne]

Will we ever truly reach the dividing line? I doubt it, because the vast amount of different perspectives will disagree on where that line between good life and perfection that leads to collapse exists. Even the concept of '' life that is as good as it can be without the threat of what an utopia and perfection would cause to our civilization '' would vary from person to person, or at least from culture to culture.

If the point is avoiding a "Dead End" altogether, or for as long as possible, and if we - hypothetically - accept the premise of the "perfection Dead End" as one of many, then I have to point out that we also got illustrated multiple "dead ends" that did not collapse because of perfection. As a matter of fact, they collapsed because a) of factors that did not exist in Etheirys until Venat Sundered it (disease and war) and b) because of an unbridgeable gap amongst mortals in "a vast amount of different perspectives." So singling out the Ancients in this regard, even putting aside the ways that they are not a 1:1 correlation with the Plenty, honestly starts feeling a little targeted and mean-spirited.

I do not see any problem here, on the contrary I find it quite fascinating. Ultimately the sundered mankind will never reach perfection, our mortality and diversity in thought, ideology and culture will not allow it.

There are two problems with this. Handily, one is Watsonian, and one is Doylist.

On a Watsonian level, if our approach if "mortality is a safeguard against a Dead End [and therefore necessarily existing as a mortal is superior to existing as an immortal]" then the story, in-universe, is deeply inconsistent, because we had an entire expansion about the mortal humanity reconciling with an immortal race - the Dragons - with an urge to understand one anothers' perspectives without trying to fundamentally force an alteration on one or the other, and instead seeking a peaceful co-existence based on mutual acceptance. There is absolutely no hint that the dragons are morally expected to give up on their immortality or need to concede that their mode of existence is an inferior one to humans'. Their Dead End also had absolutely nothing to do with their immortality or their peaceful, unified way of life. It was entirely a random, unexpected attack from outsiders that had absolutely nothing to do with anything they did, their own choices, or how they lived.

On a Doylist level, this is a suggestion that there are fundamentally wrong ways, inferior ways, to be born and then live according to innate, immutable characteristics one is, again, born with. The Ancients did not engineer themselves to be ageless or wield the powers they did. They were born with them. Do you see how the suggestion of "there are ways of physically existing in this world that are just innately inferior and wrong, and if you are born that way, that justifies a mindset of 'it's okay to exterminate them because they were doomed anyway' or 'it's okay to exterminate them in favor of a biologically 'more correct' form of life' immediately becomes deeply horrifying, particularly speaking from the perspective of someone disabled and/or a member of a marginalized group?

[Rulakir]

I always come back to the fact that if the sundering were indeed 'necessary' then the story did a poor job of conveying that. Rather than rehash all the reasons why, I'll just skip to I was reminded of Althena in Lunar: Eternal Blue. The evil force in that story had permeated every corner of the world and was turning mankind into monsters. The remaining vestiges of humanity were suffering and begged Althena for salvation. It's made abundantly clear due to the extent and severity of the corruption she had no choice but to raze the planet to ensure it was excised. Survivors were relocated to the moon until such a time as the world could restore itself to being inhabitable.

Perhaps if they'd kept the 'Sound' within the planet and Hydaelyn sundering it to keep it at bay it could have worked. It could have even been the reason why people were divided over the fate of the star, if Venat had actually brought up the sundering as a course of action until they could figure out a permanent solution.

Ultimately the sundered mankind will never reach perfection, our mortality and diversity in thought, ideology and culture will not allow it.

Even the notes within The Plenty imply they were once similar to the sundered. Not to mention Allag was arguably headed that route until the calamity. Just because people are diverse now doesn't mean they will be in perpetuity.

Plus, the denizens of The Plenty were a hivemind. There wasn't anything to indicate the Ancients were anywhere close to that considering their divide over the fate of the star following the Final Days.

[EaraGrace]

That's ultimately the problem here. On its own, the philosophy of "we can never get to perfection but we should keep striving for the best outcome we can" is fine, and it's what the story has been running on up to this point.

The problem here is when they also try to have this story element of "look at these people who kept striving until they did reach what they believe to be perfection! It invariably turned out to be their undoing and their whole society collapsed!"

Because that was the only goal. Achieving that perfection was what it was all for, and learning it could either not be obtained (Ea) or isn’t conducive to living (the Plenty) leads to destruction.

So where is the dividing line? Where should we keep trying, and where should we stop because our idea of creating a good world for people might actually be just as flawed and lead to similar disaster?

There isn’t one! The point isn’t to prevent people from making a good world, but preparing those who built it and live in it to see it end, and still retain the will to live. That’s the point of Venats trial!

As fragmented, imperfect beings, yours is a neverending quest.
A quest to find your purpose, knowing your end is assured.
To find the strength to continue, when all strength has left you.
To find joy, even as darkness descends.
And amidst deepest despair life everlasting.

The Sundered live their lives knowing the end will come, knowing that everything they built will end and they are forced to reckon with that. As we do in our lives too. It’s the dyed sand mandalas, destined to be destroyed and lost!

Answers is about the same exact thing. The cyclical nature of existence!

But again, the story creates a very muddy area around the line between "be content with what you have" and "make the world better even if it can't be perfect". I understand that you, and several others, want to give the text the benefit of the doubt and assume that it aspires more to the latter than the former, but the problem is that the way the narrative is muddied gives the former more credibility than it deserves as well.

I’m not giving it the benefit of the doubt I’m expressing what I believe is a consistent message that Endwalker wished to express and did! The problem was never that the Ancients desired to make a better world, but that they didn’t wish to live in anything else but. She believed they couldn’t change, and that would kill them and all others.

That's not the point. The point is that the story wants to make the argument that some achievements are impossible, while also presenting us with societies that have achieved actually impossible achievements to point at and say, "See, they did this impossible feat and now they're miserable for it". Again, you can't have it both ways.

And I’m arguing your splitting hairs over something the narrative states multiple times isn’t the point. Hydaelyns speech lays out clearly the problem with the dead ends.

That's Meaning 1, then. You can't have infinite perfection AND be limited.

Please show me where someone is stated to have achieved infinite perfection. I genuinely don’t know where this was stated.

And maybe that's all true. Humanity fulfilling her hopes and surpassing her is something she allowed for the possibility of, but her words and her extensive plans with the moon show that it wasn't the outcome she actually expected to happen.

You’ve yet to give an explanation for Sundering the world if she didn’t believe they could do it and was counting on it.

Yoshida himself said that Venat working very hard behind the scenes to ensure that the timeline proceeded in accordance to how it should is a valid interpretation of events. That is my interpretation of how it all went down, that Venat intended for all of this to happen and worked to make it so. Are you going to disagree and insist that this is an invalid idea?

I honestly do not care if you believe that theory, but understand that I don’t share it and any conclusion based on it will require justification for me to believe it. Not that you should care but I want to make that clear.

Venat's care for her own people was itself contingent on a subjective and ultimately meaningless test. I also disagree that Emet's empathy for mortals was contingent on passing the test, but I doubt you'll ever accede to that.

I won’t because I thanks that’s wrong and believe I can support that. You disagree.

But you would kill an innocent person in exchange for the theoretical life of someone in the future.

I would kill an innocent in order to allow the potential for life to go on. Sacrificing one life for another I would not.