Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Fenral]

I thought "perfection is impossible so why bother?" was Meteion's schtick, not Venat's. Like, that's Nihilism 101. The point isn't to not try at all, but to carry on even if cosmic oblivion in some form is always the eventual outcome.

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?

To anyone still lost as to Venat's specific idealogy, here, have some Cicero: (emphasis mine)

But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of reprobating pleasure and extolling pain arose. To do so, I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure? On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammeled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

It's really basic stuff, but apparently also not.

[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?

[Lyth]

...

That really depends. If you believe that the elimination of strife is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a 'perfect society', then that would be correct. But then the question arises of what you would be willing to sacrifice to attain that ideal. Your individuality? Your personal freedom? If you're unwilling to part with these things either, then it's not a necessary and sufficient condition. And when you acknowledge that other people might also have their own personal set of requirements on what defines 'perfect', then it all starts to come unraveled.

Like I said earlier, none of the societies portrayed appeals to me personally as 'ideal', so I'd take issue with calling them 'perfect'. I would not wish to live in any of them, Amaurot included, simply because being part of a hivemind does not appeal to me. You might have a different viewpoint, but that's just your viewpoint.

The tangential discussion about societal progress is irrelevant. People will always seek to improve their lives in accordance with their own personal ideals. But to claim that those ideals are identical and uniform for all human beings is ignorant. That's why a 'utopia' is a contradiction in terms.

[Cilia]

I thought "perfection is impossible so why bother?" was Meteion's schtick, not Venat's. Like, that's Nihilism 101. The point isn't to not try at all, but to carry on even if cosmic oblivion in some form is always the eventual outcome.

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?

To anyone still lost as to Venat's specific idealogy, here, have some Cicero: (emphasis mine)
It's really basic stuff, but apparently also not.

I'll see your Cicero... and raise you some Nietzsche.

If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.

All the terrible things that happened throughout the universe's history were needed to produce just one moment - one single moment - when you were happy. Is your own happiness not worth fighting for because your existence is predicated on your forebears staining their hands with blood and sin?

Raise ya Camus as well:

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Sisyphus was a man from Greek myth cursed to try rolling a boulder up a hill for all eternity for cheating death twice, but Camus reimagined him as being happy because he never stopped trying. The world is cruel, unfair, and will devour you whole - so all you can do is find happiness and pride in the little things you can control. You can always start over, even if you fall. (But the Ancients did not want to start over; they wanted to go back to the way things were, even though nothing could turn back the clock and no amount of sacrifices could return everyone to life. In essence, they gave up the forging ahead, taking risks, and sought only security and comfort in Zodiark's arms. What future could such a civilization possibly create?)

And as bonus, it may not be from an existentialist philosopher but Bleach's Mayuri Kurotsuchi gives a pretty scathing condemnation on the concept of perfection that I like to think is relevant given Emet-Selch's touting Amaurotine civilization as "perfect:"

The 'perfect being' you said...? Well... I have to tell you the honest truth as I see it. In this world nothing perfect exists. It may be a cliché after all, but it's the way things are. That's precisely why ordinary men pursue to concept of perfection, it's infatuation... But ultimately I have to ask myself "What is the true meaning of being perfect?" And the answer I came up with was: nothing. Not one thing. The truth of the matter is I despise perfection. If something is truly perfect, that's it. The bottom line becomes there is no room for imagination, no space for intelligence or ability or improvement. Do you understand? To men of science like us perfection is a dead end, a condition of hopelessness. Always strive to be better than anything that came before you, but not perfect. Scientists agonize over the attempt to achieve perfection. That's the kind of creatures we are. We take joy in trying to exceed our grasp, in trying to reach for something that in the end we have to admit may in fact be unreachable. In other words, you may think the we operate on the same level, but you're wrong. The moment you started talking about perfection you embraced an impossible concept and you already lost to me. That is of course if you are indeed a scientist at all.

Once you set something as a perfect ideal, if you reach it you will have nothing to work toward even though there is always room for improvement. (Why couldn't Lahabrea have made his phoenixes smarter, or something?) Amaurotine civilization's focus on duty and conformity led to someone who pondered whether there was more life had to offer than fulfilling his duty and then dying as nothing more than a cog in the system; for all of Emet-Selch's posturing Amaurot was far from perfect, but most of its people believed it to be so and were unwilling or unable to see and improve upon those flaws thanks to their easy lives (which, incidentally, is exactly why they had little to no resilience in the face of tragedy and decided abandoning their guiding principles as stewards of the star to turn it into an aether farm for their selfish wants was the better path).

---

Meh... you know, uhh, "If my motives met with your approval, would you no longer resent the outcome?"; no amount of argument or reasoning will convince folk what think the Sundering was unjustified and unnecessary to the contrary, so I'm just going to bow out at this juncture. Not every storyline is gonna gel with every player, an' that's ok.

[Rannie]

I'm seeing a lot of parallels going on in these threads with how subjective "perfection" is to different people. Thanks for reminding me that no two views are the same especially with how people feel on what something should be to them.

"One man's Hell is another Man's Heaven."

[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.”

[Theodric]

Relevant to my thoughts:





Sometimes characters do stand to benefit immensely from acts of genocide and it is very much the easier and safest route to take. Though generally speaking it's considered a red line in the sand, one so horrific that it cannot be crossed easily.

FFXIV doesn't really treat the concept of genocide with respect or weight. As witnessed by awkwardly trying to justify it through a series of increasingly bizarre and childish caricatures. Simply repeating 'she loves u there wuz no other way' doesn't do it for many of us, I'm afraid!

[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.