Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[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:

[Brinne]

I have bad news about the world we live in.

So do I, considering:

I believe the bar necessary to harm an innocent is so high that only an evil of impossible magnitude could justify such an act.

So, how much do you know about the ways in which the parts for the computer or electronic device you are currently using were sourced?

[CrownySuccubus]

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

Just like perfection, predicting a future that didn't happen is impossible.

I have bad news about the world we live in.

Are you actually suggesting that the state of the world is FINE, then? If not, then this is an attempt at a "gotcha" and not an argument.

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.

Yes, we know your opinion. Doubling down on it is not conducive to a discussion.

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.

Do you believe that eliminating all strife and sorrow is possible in reality?

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:

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

It's not that I misunderstood it. It's that you refuse to think critically about it.

(Off-note: did that accusation feel good? No? Then KNOCK IT OFF.)

Meteion was talking about Ultima Thule in general, not The Plenty specifically. And no, we cannot apply that statement to ALL of Ultima Thule or the Dead Lands, because the dragons didn't assume they had achieved perfection, nor did the star that died by plague, nor the star ruled by the deity that killed everybody. Even the wartorn star never seems to have claimed that their world was perfect. And on top of that, there are tons of worlds (like the Nekropolis) where even Meteion doesn't know what the hell happened. So clearly, Meteion's broad statement there has plenty of exceptions.

Likewise, in the Plenty itself, they say:

"A curious traveler visited our star - a bird which proffered these questions: "What meaning does life hold? For what do you strive?"I could find no satisfactory answers, only bittersweet memories of an age long past.

There was a time when we were lesser, and in our nescience sought purpose - struggled to justify life's worth. That was, of course, before we achieved perfection. Now, condemned to our paradise, we understand the fatuity of existance.

Like the fledgelings we once were the poor bird could not accept the truth. It asked us again and again - hoping, perhaps, our answer might change.

There was a time when we yearned to explore the heavens, found purpose in the hope of unveiling life's mysteries. A dream shattered when we reached enlightenment, and found it empty. There was a time when we believed in our legacy, thought ourselves marking a worthy path our successors might follow. Efforts rendered futile when we discovered the keys to paradise and immortality. As individuals we struggled to know what was right, yet in today's perfect unity there is naught left to question. We are infinity constricted by the finite, but no more─Ra-la shall grant us the mercy of annihilation."

Meteion confirms this:

[Meteion: Farther still existed a star without strife...

Meteion: ...where none remembered life's trials─or its joys.

Meteion: What its people had gained from ease, they lost to apathy.

Meteion: So they created the kindest, most gentle of beasts.

So again, we're left with two possibilities:

1) They did NOT eliminate all sorrow and strife, and were bummed out because they thought they did.
2) They actually eliminated all sorrow and strife, but found they could find no joy without it.

#2 contradicts itself. #1 makes them look like idiots that service no lesson.

The story states that it's #2.

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.”

Which is, again, Meaning 1 of "perfection".

Meaning 1: The best civilization that the specific society is capable of, regardless of any remaining "flaws".

Meaning 2: A truly perfect society, with no flaws.

In which case, the Plenty's entire problem never existed and they were just idiots.

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

To repeat:

Yes, we know your opinion. Doubling down on it is not conducive to a discussion.

[EaraGrace]

Just like perfection, predicting a future that didn't happen is impossible.

Of course knowing the future to its specifics is impossible, but all living beings have to make judgment calls and inferences based on existing information. How convenient that its not acceptable to do so here.

Are you actually suggesting that the state of the world is FINE, then? If not, then this is an attempt at a "gotcha" and not an argument.

Fuck no, but the issue I have with the world isn't that people are making decisions that effect others, its the decisions and the reasons for them. Even in the democratic societies people are making decisions for others, oftentimes ones they don't agree with. Unless you believe in anarchism Crowny, which is fine if you do, thats an inevitability.

Yes, we know your opinion. Doubling down on it is not conducive to a discussion.

You want a discussion or not Crowny. I'm answering your questions and responding to your points.

D

o you believe that eliminating all strife and sorrow is possible in reality?

All strife and sorrow? No.

It's not that I misunderstood it. It's that you refuse to think critically about it.

(Off-note: did that accusation feel good? No? Then KNOCK IT OFF.)

You've treated me like an idiot and denigrated me throughout this discussion, so don't get sanctimonious with me.

Meteion was talking about Ultima Thule in general, not The Plenty specifically. And no, we cannot apply that statement to ALL of Ultima Thule or the Dead Lands, because the dragons didn't assume they had achieved perfection, nor did the star that died by plague, nor the star ruled by the deity that killed everybody.

We almost certainly can!

Beyond that distant veil... Paradise lost. So glorious. So beautiful...
We were a proud and noble race. Strength embodied. We knew only love. Before they came...
Metal monstrosities of black and silver. No bonds of blood did they share, nor conviction did they have to guide them.
A crushing defeat. Never had we known such shame... Stilled now are the winds, though none could fill these wings burdened by ignominy. We fly no more, only sink into oblivion...
I beg thee leave me to dream. To forget that which we have lost...

Sounds real familiar to me!

Even the wartorn star never seems to have claimed that their world was perfect. And on top of that, there are tons of worlds (like the Nekropolis) where even Meteion doesn't know what the hell happened. So clearly, Meteion's broad statement there has plenty of exceptions.

Sure, but that perfection was still sought with a single minded zealotry that peace and unity was the way forward. A zealotry that gave rise to the machines that killed them and the war that ripped their planet apart. Each and every world we are shown follows that same pattern. The yearning for a perfect world, the manifestation of that in action, and the consequences that follow. If you wish to hold that Meteion find all these exceptions that were so definitely possible paths forward, and simply decided to torment Hermes for the fun of it, then by all means. I think that's crazy.

So again, we're left with two possibilities:

1) They did NOT eliminate all sorrow and strife, and were bummed out because they thought they did.
2) They actually eliminated all sorrow and strife, but found they could find no joy without it.

#2 contradicts itself. #1 makes them look like idiots that service no lesson.

The story states that it's #2.

And I am repeatedly going to point out that the story gives several direct quotes where major characters state that it is impossible to do that. How do you hold the story states #2 with those quotes? You've yet to answer that, and instead insisted that the contradiction remains. The premise of the Plenty isn't undermined by pointing out that its denizens were wrong anymore than the premise of the dragons, or the Ea or the Omicron is wrong because of what happened in Ultima Thule. A society that gave up individuality itself in order to eliminate sorrow being ruined by the realization that life is unable to exist with out is not crazy, it makes perfect sense!

In which case, the Plenty's entire problem never existed and they were just idiots.

Believe as you please then. I think they tried their best.

To repeat:

Yes, we know your opinion. Doubling down on it is not conducive to a discussion.

Ok, then in the interest of discussion explain your reasoning. You've given a moral reason for why you shouldn't by saying:

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

But I don't agree with you there! So were at an impasse. If we would like to discuss that and not just agree to disagree, we then need to find a way around that. What reason do I have to not believe that? What problems exist in my reasoning here? Any of these would give me more to say than just restating my position!

I'll make it obvious in case it isn't: they don't need to show every detailed step of their deliberation processes (or, for that matter, when Lahabrea needed a toilet break), least of all to totally-just-a-familiars, in order to be transparent in communicating their decisions to their people for further discussion. So, from where in the above does it follow that it is in accordance with the way their government or society operated to surreptitiously decide to spring a surprise supreme deity on them and genocide their entire people? When even the Convocation members had sigils binding them from using their powers in ways that abused their position?

Ok, I genuinely don't understand how a statement where it is clearly stated that highly sensitive affairs that are revealed only to select few, which he states includes us, can be interpreted this way. The word include quite literally means "comprise or contain as part of a whole." What exactly do you think the whole being referred to is?

So, how much do you know about the ways in which the parts for the computer or electronic device you are currently using were sourced?

Good one Brinne, I'm sure you know for complete certainty that I've never advocated, agreed with or fought for change in production practices in worldwide supply chains. You mentioned me poisoning the well before but based on statements like this I don't think its a well anymore. Its a container of toxic sludge.

[Brinne]

Good one Brinne, I'm sure you know for complete certainty that I've never advocated, agreed with or fought for change in production practices in worldwide supply chains. You mentioned me poisoning the well before but based on statements like this I don't think its a well anymore. Its a container of toxic sludge.

Eara, you were the one who invoked the state of the real world as something to inform this discussion and how we should understand the Ancients' situation, as seen with your first quote in my post, and furthermore, you were the one to tie your own personal choices in similar moral questions into how you view the overall morality of Endwalker. At that point, you have opened the door to interrogate on that basis, not me.

So, once again: only an evil of impossible magnitude can justify such an act as bringing harm to innocent life. "An evil of impossible magnitude" would cover both a threat to life present and future, and you being prevented from using your personal electronic devices, under this logic. Under premises that you, once again, had already introduced or accepted in this discussion.

[EaraGrace]

Eara, you were the one who invoked the state of the real world as something to inform this discussion and how we should understand the Ancients' situation, as seen with your first quote in my post, and furthermore, you were the one to tie your own personal choices in similar moral questions into how you view the overall morality of Endwalker. At that point, you have opened the door to interrogate on that basis, not me.

So, once again: only an evil of impossible magnitude can justify such an act as bringing harm to innocent life. "An evil of impossible magnitude" would cover both a threat to life present and future, and you being prevented from using your personal electronic devices, under this logic. Under premises that you, once again, had already introduced or accepted in this discussion.

And I gave reason why I don't think that's a fair criticism of my position, and in fact that whole statement relies on assumptions about a stranger on the internet. I explained my moral system, and I believe I have lived by it. If you genuinely think that me purchasing an electronic device is akin to the direct maiming and harming of an innocent, then we can discuss that. But don't pretend like this isn't some clear attempt at a gotcha.

[CrownySuccubus]

Of course knowing the future to its specifics is impossible, but all living beings have to make judgment calls and inferences based on existing information. How convenient that its not acceptable to do so here.

...How "convenient" that one person shouldn't be allowed to make a judgment call to commit genocide on the entire human race and reset civilization based on a possibility which is inherently impossible to predict?

Yeah, that sounds like a good thing, to me.

Fuck no, but the issue I have with the world isn't that people are making decisions that effect others, its the decisions and the reasons for them. Even in the democratic societies people are making decisions for others, oftentimes ones they don't agree with. Unless you believe in anarchism Crowny, which is fine if you do, thats an inevitability.

As I said earlier, this argument fallaciously argues that because dictatorship and democracy are both forms of authority, they're both equal and completely denies the possibility that one is worse than the other.

You want a discussion or not Crowny. I'm answering your questions and responding to your points.

No, you're doubling down on your opinions. Which is NOT conducive to a discussion.

All strife and sorrow? No.

Then that answers your question, doesn't it?

You've treated me like an idiot and denigrated me throughout this discussion, so don't get sanctimonious with me.

Give me one example. If it's a valid one, I'll apologize.

Regardless, the next time you pull that, this discussion is over immediately.

We almost certainly can!

Sounds real familiar to me!

So MAYBE the dragons? So one out of the four mentioned?

But even the dragons don't really count, because it wasn't a search for perfection that ruined them. Like, at all. In fact, if the dragons had been any lesser than what they were, they still would have been wiped out by the Omnicron...only faster.

Sure, but that perfection was still sought with a single minded zealotry that peace and unity was the way forward. A zealotry that gave rise to the machines that killed them and the war that ripped their planet apart. Each and every world we are shown follows that same pattern. The yearning for a perfect world, the manifestation of that in action, and the consequences that follow.

Again, the dragons don't count, the plague world doesn't count, nor does the one destroyed by their deity.

And the ones where Meteion doesn't know what happened literally cannot count, because she flat out does not have the answers.

If you wish to hold that Meteion find all these exceptions that were so definitely possible paths forward, and simply decided to torment Hermes for the fun of it, then by all means. I think that's crazy.

That's a strawman. What I hold is that you are overreaching on a very general statement that Meteion made to offer it as "proof" of your argument, when it isn't.

And I am repeatedly going to point out that the story gives several direct quotes where major characters state that it is impossible to do that. How do you hold the story states #2 with those quotes? You've yet to answer that, and instead insisted that the contradiction remains.

Every quote you present that states how it's "impossible" to do it is countered by direct quotes which stated that the Plenty literally did it. Which I've quoted multiple times. The very fact that there are quotes that contradict each other is flat out, text proof of said contradiction. So how have I "yet to answer" anything?

Believe as you please then. I think they tried their best.

Cool.

Ok, then in the interest of discussion explain your reasoning. You've given a moral reason for why you shouldn't by saying:

But I don't agree with you there! So were at an impasse. If we would like to discuss that and not just agree to disagree, we then need to find a way around that. What reason do I have to not believe that? What problems exist in my reasoning here? Any of these would give me more to say than just restating my position!

Your reasoning (based on the first two quotes in this post) basically amounts to "the answer to our problems is a benevolent dictatorship", where one person or cabal with good intentions acts unilaterally to enact whatever goal they think needs to be done for the sake of life. To avoid any semantics, we can call "one person makes decisions for the rest of an entire world" something other than a "dictatorship" if you like, but it really doesn't matter what it's called. It doesn't change the next part of my statement.

The problem with this argument is that such a benevolent dictatorship is, like perfection or predicting the future, impossible. The exact same fundamental problem that prevents perfection and prediction of the future is also inherent in the concept of a "benevolent" dictatorship. A person cannot be all-knowing or all-seeing or all-compassionate. Have you ever heard of a scientist that was the foremost expert on EVERY field of study? Have you ever heard of a politician who never made a bad decision? Have you ever heard of a business man who's never lost money? That's the fundamental problem with one person making decisions for everyone else. Nobody knows everything, is never wrong, or makes mistakes. The inherent problem of a dictatorship is that if the leader in question is incorrect, ignorant, or inefficient, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. Furthermore, once a dictatorship is in place, there is no guarantee that it will end. The perfect examples are Rome and Weimar Germany; both of them placed "benevolent" dictators in charge to save civilization from dire collapse, and then those dictators decided to just keep that power forever. And even if their reign ends, that doesn't negate the possibility of consequences -- by the time the last Roman emperor fell, Europe had become a theocratic hegemony, and by the time Germany was defeated, a few million people had been exterminated and humankind entered a nuclear cold war. Hell, even in the case of Venat, the changes she made to Etheirys (if not the universe, by not telling anybody about Meteion) are fundamentally permanent, and nobody has the ability to do anything about it.

If you agree with EW's story in that the pursuit of a perfect world leads to Dead Ends, then you, more than anybody here, should be absolutely opposed to the idea that any one person should EVER decide the fate of an entire planet -- because if the dictator decides that pursuing perfection is the correct thing to do, then that's where the world will be headed, because the definition of a dictatorship is that they're the only one with the power to act or decide. Furthermore, a dictatorship is a form of government that REQUIRES perfection. If the dictator is ever wrong about ANYTHING or ever ignores the interests of society, you are screwed. Even if you depose that dictatorship and install another "better" one, the problem remains. The best case scenario is that you get a great absolute leader for a temporary amount of time, until they make a decision that is incorrect, ignorant or inefficient. Then you're right back to where you started at BEST. At worst, there'll be so much damage that it'll be too late to do anything about it this time.

In essence, dictatorships are great, until they aren't. And once they aren't, you're screwed.

[KariTheFox]

When did Eara advocate for a benevolent dictatorship? This whole spiel about the flaws of benevolent dictatorship seems a little silly when Venat was never a dictator anyway.