Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[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.

[CrownySuccubus]

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.

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!

The problem with this argument is that Venat introduced MORE suffering. She literally brought mortality, weakness, disease, war, famine and other things to a society that had eliminated those things long ago. When told that a specific set of events would lead to the destruction of said world, she withheld information in tacit agreement with the "test" that said destruction would pose. Venat effectively undid and reset a plethora of progress that objectively made a "good world".

This would basically be the same as destroying the cure for polio, tuberculosis and smallpox because you think kids spend too much time on TikTok.

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 believe they couldn’t change, and that would kill them.

Again, this argument doesn't work because Venat had the information to warn people about what was coming and did not.

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.

You claim it's "splitting hairs", but it's the entire fallacy of the plot. You cannot build a narrative based on "this is impossible to achieve, therefore don't live your life pursuing it" and then flat out point to societies that achieved other impossible things as proof of your argument.

It would be like having a mystery story where the main character smugly derides other characters for believing that a silly superstition is behind the mystery, but later revealing that he solved the mystery by asking a ghost. You can't claim that something being impossible is the reason you shouldn't try to do it, and then introduce entire groups that did OTHER impossible things.

Show me in the text where someone is stated to have achieved infinite perfection.

Eara, I've explained this thoroughly within several posts. I've carefully walked you down my logic on this. I refuse to do so again.

You will either reread what I've said and engage with my point in good faith, or this point of discussion is done. I'm not playing these sorts of games to try to go for "gotchas".

[EaraGrace]

The problem with this argument is that Venat introduced MORE suffering. She literally brought mortality, weakness, disease, war, famine and other things to a society that had eliminated those things long ago. When told that a specific set of events would lead to the destruction of said world, she withheld information in tacit agreement with the "test" that said destruction would pose. Venat effectively undid and reset a plethora of progress that objectively made a "good world".

A good world that would kill them. The fact that it was good in many respects does not change that truth. If the world today was facing destruction, yet preventing it would require those living today to face much more struggle than those previously, it is my belief that they should.

And lets be clear, revealing to a world of all powerful beings, so powerful in fact that a small group of dissidents could shatter that selfsame world, that the event that traumatized them was only delayed, and not permanently averted would be a hard sell alone. But adding that this was the combined answer of all known life and would require humanity to face their trauma is even worse. Yeah, its a hard call, but to pretend that she just withheld info on a whim is strawmanning her.

This would basically be the same as destroying the cure for polio, tuberculosis and smallpox because you think kids spend too much time on TikTok.

Or its like intentionally making decisions to lower living standards in order to prevent climate change.

You claim it's "splitting hairs", but it's the entire fallacy of the plot. You cannot build a narrative based on "this is impossible to achieve, therefore don't live your life pursuing it" and then flat out point to societies that achieved other impossible things as proof of your argument.

And again, its "this is impossible to achieve, but you should continue to strive to do so knowing and accepting that fact."

Eara, I've explained this thoroughly within several posts. I've carefully walked you down my logic on this. I refuse to do so again.

You will either reread what I've said and engage with my point in good faith, or this point of discussion is done. I'm not playing these sorts of games to try to go for "gotchas".

Crowny I have genuinely tried to engage with this point in good faith but I don't agree on you on this. To go with your language, I think the game has those living in dead ends assert that their conception of perfection follows meaning 2, when in actuality they live in meaning 1. The fact that, once again, the game has multiple characters talk about the futility of only valuing perfection, and juxtaposes these "perfect" worlds with the negative utilitarianism-esque result, should give us reason to doubt that they are perfect after all. Hell, the Ancient world embodies this completely, with Venat commenting that Hermes now sees the world without the perfect veneer, and how that leads to his actions. We are shown the flaws of that world and yet it too was described by many characters ingame as perfect. This isn’t a contradiction, it’s a consequence of unreliable narration, and done so with intent.

If this comes down to "sacrificing an innocent life to save a different, concrete, materially existing life is morally terrible and worthy of condemnation" but "sacrificing an innocent life for an abstract potential life is morally good and worthy of praise" then, yeah, this is probably an utterly unbridgeable gap in terms of worldview, values, and morals, unfortunately.

I believe the bar necessary to harm an innocent is so high that only an evil of impossible magnitude could justify such an act. The destruction of life both present and future constitutes such a circumstance to me. I don't think others need to agree with me, nor do I think doing something like the Sundering is great or amazing or awesome, but I do think its the moral choice. As the Watcher said you're free to come to your own conclusion.

[CrownySuccubus]

A good world that would kill them. The fact that it was good in many respects does not change that truth.

Except it wasn't "the world" that killed them. They were murdered by Heremes and Meteion before being finished off by Venat.

And lets be clear, revealing to a world of all powerful beings, so powerful in fact that a small group of dissidents could shatter that selfsame world, that the event that traumatized them was only delayed, and not permanently averted would be a hard sell alone. But adding that this was the combined answer of all known life and would require humanity to face their trauma is even worse. Yeah, its a hard call, but to pretend that she just withheld info on a whim is strawmanning her.

It's not a "hard call" at all. No one deserves to make unilateral decisions for an entire planet.

AOr its like intentionally making decisions to lower living standards in order to prevent climate change.

To be frank, if you agree with one person making that decision for all of humankind, then I think that's fundamentally messed up.

And again, its "this is impossible to achieve, but you should continue to strive to do so knowing and accepting that fact."

Except, once again...you can't claim that one thing is impossible to achieve, and then try to prove that with something else equally impossible.

The fact that, once again, the game has multiple characters talk about the futility of only valuing perfection, and juxtaposes these "perfect" worlds with the negative utilitarianism-esque result, should give us reason to doubt that they are perfect after all.

Except, again, this argument does not work because of the Plenty. The premise of the Plenty is that they have eradicated all sorrow, and this is stated multiiple times by independent entities outside of the denizens themselves.



The entire premise of the Plenty is that if there is no sorrow or strife, there is no joy. So we are told in absolute terms that they eliminated sorry and strife, and thus have no joy. The story does not present this as "they BELIEVE they have done this, but are wrong", because if it did, the premise would be faulty. If they did not eliminate all sorrow and suffering, and thus joy, then the simple solution to their problem is to demonstrate sorrow and suffering which they overlooked, and thus joy that they overlooked...and if that's the case, then the Plenty are idiots who killed themselves for no reason.

So we're left with two conclusions: either the Plenty is a fallacy which doesn't work within its own premise, or the Plenty are all idiots and their abject lesson proves nothing. Personally, I don't find either one of those very engaging for the themes of the story.

Hell, the Ancient world embodies this completely, with Venat commenting that Hermes now sees the world without the perfect veneer, and how that leads to his actions. We are shown the flaws of that world and yet it too was described by many characters ingame as perfect. This isn’t a contradiction, it’s a consequence of unreliable narration, and done so with intent.

This argument only works if you accept the conclusion: that Venat is correct and her judgment makes sense from an out-of-universe context.

If you do not accept this, then Venat's statement makes no sense, because we're once again assuming that "perfect" means "current best" and not an absolute state. Again, this is like assuming that the iPhone X was perfect before the iPhone 11 came out, which was perfect before the iPhone 12 came out, and so on and so forth.

AI believe the bar necessary to harm an innocent is so high that only an evil of impossible magnitude could justify such an act. The destruction of life both present and future constitutes such a circumstance to me.

Again, the problem with this argument is that Venat had other options and did not take them.

[EaraGrace]

Except it wasn't "the world" that killed them. They were murdered by Heremes and Meteion before being finished off by Venat.

And what would come afterwards if the Final Days never occurred?

It's not a "hard call" at all. No one deserves to make unilateral decisions for an entire planet.

I have bad news about the world we live in.

To be frank, if you agree with one person making that decision for all of humankind, then I think that's fundamentally messed up.

The right choice is the right choice. I think Venat and her group made the right call given wheat we know, and I think the circumstances of the moment make that clear.

Except, once again...you can't claim that one thing is impossible to achieve, and then try to prove that with something else equally impossible.

Perhaps I missed this point but what was “equally impossible” that was achieved? The Dead Ends accomplished much, sure, but they recognized impossibility when they saw it.

Except, again, this argument does not work because of the Plenty. The premise of the Plenty is that they have eradicated all sorrow, and this is stated multiiple times by independent entities outside of the denizens themselves.

The entire premise of the Plenty is that if there is no sorrow or strife, there is no joy. So we are told in absolute terms that they eliminated sorry and strife, and thus have no joy. The story does not present this as "they BELIEVE they have done this, but are wrong", because if it did, the premise would be faulty. If they did not eliminate all sorrow and suffering, and thus joy, then the simple solution to their problem is to demonstrate sorrow and suffering which they overlooked, and thus joy that they overlooked...and if that's the case, then the Plenty are idiots who killed themselves for no reason.

I believe you may have misunderstood the narratives point. The people of the Plenty, and all those who tried something similar, were well aware they failed at the end of their efforts. As Meteion says:

Though worlds apart, these peoples shared a belief. The belief that they had tried their best. That they had tried to fulfill, with every step and success. In the course of which, they learned the truth. That they would never be free of fear and sorrow, anger and despair-of loneliness-so long as they yet lived.

It was that realization, that “paradise” was empty and a prison, that broke them.

This argument only works if you accept the conclusion: that Venat is correct and her judgment makes sense from an out-of-universe context.

If you do not accept this, then Venat's statement makes no sense, because we're once again assuming that "perfect" means "current best" and not an absolute state. Again, this is like assuming that the iPhone X was perfect before the iPhone 11 came out, which was perfect before the iPhone 12 came out, and so on and so forth.

Or we assume “perfect” means the best they could do in the universe they live in, given the conception of perfection they decided to adopt. As the denizens of the Plenty described themselves, “infinity constructed by the finite.”

Again, the problem with this argument is that Venat had other options and did not take them.

And I do not see those as options for the reasons laid out.

The Convocation along with the other civil institutions of their star were expected to show full transparency: