Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Lurina]

To someone following the utility principle it wouldn't. You'd have to appeal to some other form of good, which is obviously untenable.

Well, no, but it's possible for me to recognize a worthwhile or interesting point even when it conflicts with my personal ideology. No philosophy is capable of completely encompassing every worthwhile idea because reality and human nature are filled with contradictory principles. Even though I think it is basically correct, there are limitations on utilitarian thought, which is why many utilitarian philosophers - and most philosophers of like, everything - qualify their thinking in the way I was talking about earlier.

You seem like you only really view this stuff in absolute terms.

To someone following the utility principle it wouldn't. You'd have to appeal to some other form of good, which is obviously untenable. Again I believe it does contain self-evident truths. A society that believes it attained perfection cannot be improved or changed as it is "perfect". Ergo, those living in it will limited to only what is and will face the consequences of this. This is logical, and the same can be said with the Ea. If a society places the gathering of knowledge above all else, the realization that all of that is doomed is understandably horrific. The game justifies its moral with these arguments, as well as the others scattered throughout the story.

I'm going to have to stop you there, because it really feels like you aren't understanding what exactly it is I'm complaining about, or what I mean when I say 'self-evident truth'. Let me try this more directly, contrasting the final theme of The Good Place again with the Plenty, an explictly similar scenario, in how they construct their arguments. Like most, we can basically break down both into a fact (an observable truth about reality), an inference (a logical assumption predicated on the previous fact) and a thesis (what the author believes is the reasonable conclusion based on the previous two).

Fact: The amount of pleasurable experiences one can have in reality is finite.
Inference: Therefore, without a finite lifespan, people will inevitably run out of new pleasurable things to experience.
Thesis: Some people will become bored of existing and want to end that existence.

Fact: "A society that believes it attained perfection cannot be improved or changed as it is "perfect"."
Inference: Therefore, an unchanging society, however pleasant, will have its population lose all sense of meaning and stop enjoying life.
Thesis: The inhabitants of the unchanging society will end up wanting to end their existence en-masse.

Do you see the difference?

The problem isn't that the initial fact is wrong, or that the thesis is unreasonable unto itself. The problem is the fact>inference leap. In the first case, B is the only logical conclusion, based on the material limitations of the universe, of A. But in the second case, B is just a guess or opinion on what would follow A. It's less like Fact-Inference-Thesis and more like Fact-Thesis-Thesis. That extends to the little bit of context we get from Meteion's narration and the notes because all they really do is reiterate and clarify said thesis.

It doesn't really seem like you're cognizant of the distinction, or at least don't view it as important; Like, in this post, you assert that Endwalker is also based on self-evident truth just because the initial fact is true and the thesis is written clearly. Substantiation and the story 'showing its work' (and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect stories to do this - again, in the case of the Good Place, they lay out that inference repeatedly) doesn't factor in.

And you say "If a society places the gathering of knowledge above all else, the realization that all of that is doomed is understandably horrific", but this isn't a logical inference either - there are plenty of dedicated scientists in the real world who know about entropy and are not experiencing any sort of existential horror, and even if there weren't, there's nothing about that assertion which is implicitly true. It's Fact-Thesis-Thesis again. Endwalker does this constantly. That's the problem I'm trying to express I have, but it seems like we're not operating under the same standard of implicit logic. It's hard for me to even say we disagree because it doesn't feel as though we're having the same conversation.

If what you mean by "holding it to a different standard" is that you don't feel stories with high ideas are obligated to justify themselves in this way, then just say so and we can leave it at that. But you should at least understand what my issue is first.

This is why I brought up Nier and other media, because I simply do not see what they did differently. Nier showed about as much to justify why religion inevitably collapses into murder and cannibalism

I'm happy to illustrate the distinction using this same method. In Automata's case:

Fact: Most religions claim that a benevolent deity exists which confers purpose to life, but bad things still happen even to their most important followers and leaders.
Inference: Therefore, said deity must either not exist, be malicious instead of benevolent, or allow bad things to happen as part of some grand design.
Thesis: Religion is self-contradictory and cannot answer the fundamental questions of the universe, and so invites chaos/murder/cannibalism.

While Automata also has problems with its reasoning, the problem isn't the fact>inference link in the way it is with Endwalker. It's that the thesis is kind of reductive and silly.

[EaraGrace]

You seem like you only really view this stuff in absolute terms.

I simply believe that if you have a moral system founded upon a principle, that principle would imperative what you believe to be moral. A criticism of utility gets to the core of all utilitarianism, in the same way that criticizing duties does to the deontological ethics, or critiquing virtues does to virtue ethics. If that's absolutist to you then ok but I don't believe that to be wrong.

I'm going to have to stop you there, because it really feels like you aren't understanding what exactly it is I'm complaining about, or what I mean when I say 'self-evident truth'. Let me try this more directly, contrasting the final theme of The Good Place again with the Plenty, an explictly similar scenario, in how they construct their arguments. We can basically break down both into a fact (an observable truth about reality), an inference (a logical assumption predicated on the previous fact) and a thesis (what the author believes is the reasonable conclusion based on the previous two).

Fact: The amount of pleasurable experiences one can have in reality is finite.
Inference: Therefore, without a finite lifespan, people will inevitably run out of new pleasurable things to experience.
Thesis: Some people will become bored of existing and want to end that existence.

Fact: "A society that believes it attained perfection cannot be improved or changed as it is "perfect"."
Inference: Therefore, an unchanging society, however pleasant, will have its population lose all sense of meaning and stop enjoying life.
Thesis: The inhabitants of the unchanging society will end up wanting to end their existence en-masse.

Do you see the difference?

The problem isn't that the initial fact is wrong, or that the thesis is unreasonable unto itself. The problem is the fact>inference leap. In the first case, B is the only logical conclusion, based on the material limitations of the universe, of A. But in the second case, B is just a guess or opinion on what would follow A. It's less like Fact-Inference-Thesis and more like Fact-Thesis-Thesis. That extends to the little bit of context we get from Meteion's narration and the notes because all they really do is reiterate and clarify said thesis.

I believe you strip important context from the second scenario in order to make this work.

Fact: "A society that believes it attained perfection cannot be improved or changed as it is "perfect".
Inference: Therefore, with a long enough lifespan, living in said society would lead to ennui and dissatisfaction as nothing new is possible and repeated experiences have diminishing returns.
Thesis: The inhabitants will seek to escape their "perfect" existence as it becomes more and more painful to live.

The game explains the mechanism by which the Plenty came to resent their existence, and in so doing made the argument clear. You can say that that wouldn't happen, but once again that's different than claiming Endwalker doesn't offer an argument.

It doesn't really seem like you're cognizant of distinction, or at least don't view it as at all important;

I don't think I'm incapable of seeing distinction, I just don't agree with the distinction you are attempting to make. I believe Endwalker substantiates its position. You obviously don't. That's the core of our disagreement.

And you say "If a society places the gathering of knowledge above all else, the realization that all of that is doomed is understandably horrific", but this isn't a logical inference either - there are plenty of dedicated scientists in the real world who know about entropy and are not experiencing any sort of existential horror, and even if there weren't, there's nothing about that assertion which is implicitly true. It's Fact-Thesis-Thesis again. Endwalker does this constantly. That's the problem I'm trying to express I have, but it seems like we're not operating under the same standard of implicit logic. It's hard for me to even say we disagree because it doesn't feel as though we're having the same conversation.

And once again you strip context that makes the argument sound. I am also feeling like were not having the same conversation, because I don't think you're willing to give Endwalker any ground or charitability and it leads to us talking past each other. The Ea weren't just interested in knowledge, but we’re a society wholly dedicated to the discovery and retainment of said knowledge. This is made clear by their changed forms, which they explicitly state to have abandoned for the sake of "knowledge and technological advancement." To compare them to the average human scientist is ridiculous. And this might be why we find ourselves not connecting with each others arguments. I fully believe it logical to conclude that a people that have put so much towards the accumulation of knowledge, to the extent of the Ea, would find the inevitable end of existence and their collective knowledge a supremely demoralizing find.

If what you mean by "holding it to a different standard" is that you don't feel stories with high ideas are obligated to justify themselves in this way, then just say so and we can leave it at that. But you should at least understand what my issue is first.

No that's very much not what I said. If you aren't at least willing to believe that I mean what I say then I don't see how we can hope to have a discussion.

I'm happy to illustrate the distinction using this same method. In Automata's case:

Fact: Most religions claim that a benevolent deity exists which confers purpose to life, but bad things still happen.
Inference: Therefore, said deity must either not exist, be malicious instead of benevolent, or allow bad things to happen as part of some grand design.
Thesis: Religion is self-contradictory and cannot answer the fundamental questions of the universe, and so invites chaos/murder/cannibalism.

While Automata also has problems with its reasoning, the problem isn't the fact>inference link in the way it is with Endwalker. It's that the thesis is kind of reductive and silly.

So Automata's reasoning is no less flawed then, just in a different way? That's exactly my point about the unfair standard then, unless you believe that one kind of break in the link is worse than another?

[Lurina]

I believe you strip important context from the second scenario in order to make this work.

Fact: "A society that believes it attained perfection cannot be improved or changed as it is "perfect".
Inference: Therefore, with a long enough lifespan, living in said society would lead to ennui and dissatisfaction as nothing new is possible and repeated experiences have diminishing returns.
Thesis: The inhabitants will seek to escape their "perfect" existence as it becomes more and more painful to live.

The game explains the mechanism by which the Plenty came to resent their existence, and in so doing made the argument clear. You can say that that wouldn't happen, but once again that's different than claiming Endwalker doesn't offer an argument.

Even with more context, this doesn't really change the point I'm making. The issue is that, while the jump from fact to inference in The Good Place example is self-evident - it is just material fact that there are only so many possible pleasurable things to experience in a finite universe - your example makes an unspoken assumption between the two.

Like, let's lay both out both again with this in mind.

Fact: The amount of pleasurable experiences one can have in reality is finite.
Inference: Therefore, without a finite lifespan, people will inevitably run out of new pleasurable things to experience.
Assumption: It is impossible to meaningfully forget pleasurable experiences and re-experience them, and the resulting lack of novelty would be enough to cause some people to become suicidal.
Thesis: Some people will become bored of existing and want to end that existence.

Fact: "A society that believes it attained perfection cannot be improved or changed as it is "perfect".
Assumption: All people experience ennui and extreme discontent without novel experiences.
Inference: Therefore, with a long enough lifespan, living in said society would lead to ennui and dissatisfaction as nothing new is possible and repeated experiences have diminishing returns.
Assumption: It is impossible to restore novelty though forgetting the original experiences, and this dissatisfaction would be great enough to make all the inhabitants suicidal.
Thesis: The inhabitants will seek to escape their "perfect" existence as it becomes more and more painful to live.

An ideal argument contains no subjective assumptions whatsoever, with the fact, inference and thesis all leading seamlessly into one another. However, it is much more reasonable to have assumptions leading into the thesis than into the inference, because the thesis is by nature a subjective observation, whereas the fact and inference are just intended to reflect reality. An argument with a bad inference>thesis leap is merely wrong, while an argument with a bad fact>inference leap is, intentionally or not, disingenuous because it's parameters are biased. It is treating something it merely believes to be true as objectively true before it even begins to argue its actual point; to be mean about it, you could say it's trying to 'trick' the reader. Again, this is what I mean when I say condescending/proselytizing.

In this case (though the Ea stuff also does something similar) Endwalker takes it as an indisputable truth of reality that all people experience ennui to the point it can make them profoundly miserable. But this isn't so. Ennui is a subjective emotional experience that is reported extremely differently between individuals; the assertion is at best a guess, and at worse, completely false.

A big problem with how Endwalker argues is, like I mentioned briefly earlier, its absolutism. While the inference>thesis leap is essentially the same in both Endwalker and The Good Place, The Good Place merely argues that some people will experience terminal boredom in its anti-hedonism argument, while Endwalker - in trying to indirectly defend Hydaelyn for the Sundering, and its more extreme viewpoint generally - is forced to assert that people will eventually arrive at that state as a matter of general truth, and in doing so, makes that fact>inference assumption.

While The Good Place doesn't have to do that, because the idea that just some people experience extreme ennui is observably true.

So Automata's reasoning is no less flawed then, just in a different way? That's exactly my point about the unfair standard then, unless you believe that one kind of break in the link is worse than another?

Don't get the wrong idea - like I said, there are plenty of valid criticisms for how Automata delivers its message. Even if its argument about religion is just contrived and doesn't break the fact>inference rule, there are plenty of times it does do so, and overall the story relies on the player only having a basic investment in any of the philosophical topics it touches on to make its argument. The game is mostly carried, like Endwalker, on the emotional aspect of the storytelling. While the game is very earnest, it's a complete mess if you squint, which is why there are some very polarized responses to it, too.

It just doesn't have an official forum for people to argue about them for 1000 years.

[EaraGrace]

Fact: "A society that believes it attained perfection cannot be improved or changed as it is "perfect".
Assumption: All people experience ennui and extreme discontent without novel experiences.

Ok here is where we disagree then. I hold it as self evident fact that without novel experiences all people will experience ennui and discontent. The only variable that changes this is time. If we can't agree on this then we obviously won't agree on whether Endwalker is making a well founded argument or not.

In this case (though the Ea stuff also does something similar) Endwalker takes it as an indisputable truth of reality that all people experience ennui to the point it can make them profoundly miserable. But this isn't so. Ennui is a subjective emotional experience that is reported extremely differently between individuals; the assertion is at best a guess, and at worse, completely false.

A big problem with how Endwalker argues is, like I mentioned briefly earlier, its absolutism. While the inference>thesis leap is essentially the same in both Endwalker and The Good Place, The Good Place merely argues that some people will experience terminal boredom in its anti-hedonism argument, while Endwalker - in trying to indirectly defend Hydaelyn for the Sundering, and its more extreme viewpoint generally - is forced to assert that people will eventually arrive at that state as a matter of general truth, and in doing so, makes that fact>inference assumption.

While The Good Place doesn't have to do that, because the idea that just some people experience extreme ennui is observably true.

I'm very glad we've included the Good Place in this discussion, and you've specifically used it as a contrasting example to Endwalker, because it actually doesn't support your position on this. Ennui in the Good Place is inevitable, universal and absolute. All the major characters immediately agree that boredom is the core problem with the actual "good place," with our main insight into heaven immediately stating that "when perfection goes on forever, you become this glassy eyed mush person." The characters then immediately worry they'll become like the everyone else, and look to find a solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23IHH2E38Ec

Now perhaps I'm missing where they suggest this is only a thing some of the denizens experience, but to me the show makes the exact same leap you're criticizing Endwalker for. And their solution is Ra-La in door form! I don't see how this is anyway less absolute than what Endwalker is saying with the Plenty.

[Brinne]

Ok here is where we disagree then. I hold it as self evident fact that without novel experiences all people will experience ennui and discontent. The only variable that changes this is time. If we can't agree on this then we obviously won't agree on whether Endwalker is making a well founded argument or not.

Yeah, I’m going to jump in here - less for the purposes of arguing, per se, and more to offer a different perspective - pulling slightly on the ‘speaking as a neurodivergent person’ card here, I absolutely cannot agree this is a “self-evident fact.” To be perfectly honest, trying to imagine the life experiences and perspective of someone so utterly confident in this idea that they would affirm it in such absolute terms as “self-evident fact” is basically impossible for me to wrap my head around.

It ties into the unease I feel when I see arguments being made, whether intentional or not, that the Ancients or anyone else simply had an inherently “wrong” form of being born and simply existing that provides justification for their annihilation as a race, or to otherwise be forcibly “fixed” according to the beliefs of someone else without consent.

[Lurina]

Ok here is where we disagree then. I hold it as self evident fact that without novel experiences all people will experience ennui and discontent.

I'm trying to find a way to word this in a way that won't come across as rude, but I feel like you just aren't grasping what I mean when I say 'self-evident truth'.

A self-evident truth is just that. It's something you can empirically or logically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Belief doesn't factor into it.

The premise of "all people will experience ennui and discontent" by definition does not meet this criteria because it's impossible to prove. In fact, you can actively disprove it to a limited degree; some people simply do not experience boredom at all because the attention center of their brain doesn't behave normally.

What you are saying is that Endwalker having an unspoken premise to its argument based on a subjectively believed truth rather than a self-evident one does not bother you because you share that belief. And that's great. But it's not a defense of how it constructs its argument-- The fact and inference aspect should only be based on that which is provable. Unless, again, you don't believe it's reasonable to hold stories to this standard.

I'm very glad we've included the Good Place in this discussion, and you've specifically used it as a contrasting example to Endwalker, because it actually doesn't support your position on this. Ennui in the Good Place is inevitable, universal and absolute. All the major characters immediately agree that boredom is the core problem with the actual "good place," with our main insight into heaven immediately stating that "when perfection goes on forever, you become this glassy eyed mush person." The characters then immediately worry they'll become like the everyone else, and look to find a solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23IHH2E38Ec

Now perhaps I'm missing where they suggest this is only a thing some of the denizens experience, but to me the show makes the exact same leap you're criticizing Endwalker for. And their solution is Ra-La in door form! I don't see how this is anyway less absolute than what Endwalker is saying with the Plenty.

The Good Place is very obviously an anti-hedonist show, and I disagree with some of what it ultimately tries to suggest just as I do with Endwalker. But I think the key difference is in how it shows people responding to a perfect world. In the original Good Place (as in the location, not the show) people exhaust all new pleasurable experiences and become placid, but aren't presented as actively miserable - a life predicated on nothing but pleasure has led them to being kinda numbly content. The characters frame this as terrible, but that's more them being the voice of the thesis than that being part of the premise of the argument.

Ultimately, the show ends up having a pretty nuanced take on a hedonistic paradise. The door isn't created as nothing more than a mass-suicide device to end the inhabitants pleasure-induced suffering, but because it asserts that eternal pleasure becomes more meaningful when the possibility to end it exists. It even provides an alternative to eventually choosing death in Tahani's ending - rather than pure indulgence, it's possible to still find purpose and meaning in pursuing a goal even in a world without suffering.

That said, I can see an argument that I'm reaching here and that the initial state of the Good Place is still predicated on an assumption, just a milder one, in which case I'd apply my same criticism to it. Still, I feel like seeing you invoke it in this way has kinda helped me understand the way you think about this stuff, and why we don't really seem able to understand each other, even beyond this specific discussion.

Like I said earlier, it feels like you have kind of an absolutist way of thinking, and you're sorta projecting that absolutism in how you judge fiction. EW and TGP are both saying X=Y at their core, but the way they get there couldn't be more different - in general, The Good Place is quite reserved in its philosophical judgements, and always takes a lot of time to qualify them in a way EW kinda doesn't. That's why I liked it and found it convincing despite not already agreeing; life is complicated, and I don't think any outlook has all the answers.

Very little is universally true when it comes to people, and I appreciate deeply when writers don't try to assert what is true to them as fundamental without first qualifying things and expressing a little self-doubt, both tonally and in their reasoning. But if you don't value that in fiction so long as the core philosophical assertions are the same, then there's no distinction between Endwalker's argument and The Good Place's and, thus, no rational reason to like one and not the other.

[Vyrerus]

The Good Place

I can see why The Good Place is being compared to The Plenty, but it's still not a one for one.

The Good Place assumes that people will still be people in the afterlife, so that it can accomplish its goal of being relatable, meme-able, and understandable to a general audience. Its biggest presumption is that afterlife consciousness is so similar to flesh and blood living that everyone is still subject to weaknesses only brought about by living in a physical body. There is no imagination beyond the physical, no inspection of what it would be like to be intangible. There is little spirituality. The Plenty are beings that live forever in whatever their bodies are composed of. They aren't in an afterlife.

Also the door isn't presented as death. The characters at the end of The Good Place had experienced life so many times till they proved to be good people they had already experienced death hundreds of times. The Door is presented as a mysterious end, so unknowable that even the omniscient Janet doesn't know what actually happens. Said in the same breath as, "The greatest experiences I've had are every time Jason and I kissed." It's a comedy at the end of the day though, so for as serious as it gets philosophically, it's always quick to unseat its seriousness. It's glib.

Endwalker on the other hand, as you said, doesn't take any time to qualify its philosophical judgments. It presents them, and then it mashes the Forge Ahead button, the presumption being that we don't have time to haggle over details. It is not a comedy, in spite of all the Hummingway tomfoolery.

It's a little bit sad to me that a comedy show better qualifies itself than a game's seriously existential expansion. The show's run time is about 19 hours in total. Endwalkers is roughly 45 hours, depending on how long the gameplay segments take you/how fast you read non-voiced cutscenes. And even more if you do the sidequests.

I can definitely say I enjoyed The Good Place. Mainly for its comedy. Endwalker I was supposed to enjoy for its conclusion to a 10 year story arc, but beyond the shocks in the first half, it fumbled that finale really hard. It was practically a non sequitur with regards to the past stories.

[EaraGrace]

I'm trying to find a way to word this in a way that won't come across as rude, but I feel like you just aren't grasping what I mean when I say 'self-evident truth'.

A self-evident truth is just that. It's something you can empirically or logically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Belief doesn't factor into it.

The premise of "all people will experience ennui and discontent" by definition does not meet this criteria because it's impossible to prove. In fact, you can actively disprove it to a limited degree; some people simply do not experience boredom at all because the attention center of their brain doesn't behave normally.

By this definition there are absolutely zero things we can claim are self-evident truths about living beings then. No story talking about the human condition or nature could survive this criticism, as they all make generalizations that one could find individual edge cases for.

But I think the key difference is in how it shows people responding to a perfect world. In the original Good Place (as in the location, not the show) people exhaust all new pleasurable experiences and become placid, but aren't presented as actively miserable - a life predicated on nothing but pleasure has led them to being kinda numbly content. The characters frame this as terrible, but that's more them being the voice of the thesis than that being part of the premise of the argument.

I... don't agree. Beings don't choose death lightly. The cast clearly react like those in the good place are living terrible existences, and immediately work to escape/find a solution. There is every reason to label this a miserable existence. To quote Hypatia from episode 12:

This place kills fun, and passion, and excitement and love, till all you have left are milkshakes.

That's miserable!

Ultimately, the show ends up having a pretty nuanced take on a hedonistic paradise. The door isn't created as nothing more than a mass-suicide device to end the inhabitants pleasure-induced suffering, but because it asserts that eternal pleasure becomes more meaningful when the possibility to end it exists. It even provides an alternative to eventually choosing death in Tahani's ending - rather than pure indulgence, it's possible to still find purpose and meaning in pursuing a goal even in a world without suffering.

So I just want to point out the unproven absolutism that is stating that eternal pleasure is more meaningful when the possibility to end it exists. The show doesn't justify that, it just hold's that to be true because of how it perceives human nature. Hell, the quote justifying the suggestion for the final door is:

Every human is a little bit sad all the time because you know you're gonna die. But that knowledge is what gives life meaning.

You've basically been on a neverending vacation. And vacations are only special because they end.

This isn't qualified anymore than Endwalker's statement that ennui will inevitable follow from perfection is. It makes broad sweeping claims about human nature that are just as prone to generalizing, so once again why is it acceptable there and not here?

Hell in the same breath it even makes the same claim you're saying Endwalker is unfounded in holding as true. When Hypatia talks about how she's regaining her motivation to live now that there's an exit she says

I've been dreaming of ending the ennui of this eternal existence for a long time.

Or when Michael talks about how he want's to end his existence too

When you've already designed the ultimate one (a neighborhood), it's kind of a letdown.

So once again it's ennui, an emotion that not everyone feels if we hold you're previous criticism to be true, that ruins paradise. In other words, the show holds it to be self-evident that all people experience ennui and extreme discontent without novel experiences. As the shows creator said

“It’s sort of an inescapable conclusion,” the show’s creator Michael Schur told The Hollywood Reporter. “It doesn’t matter how great things are, if they go on forever they will get boring.”

Very little is universally true when it comes to people, and I appreciate deeply when writers don't try to assert what is true to them as fundamental without first qualifying things and expressing a little self-doubt, both tonally and in their reasoning. But if you don't value that in fiction so long as the core philosophical assertions are the same, then there's no distinction between Endwalker's argument and The Good Place's and, thus, no rational reason to like one and not the other.

To be quite frank I think you are being arbitrary on this. The Good Place asserts universal truths just as much as Endwalker does, it just seems to be like one is more acceptable to you for some other reason. I disagree with you that this is because the Good Place and other media justifies itself better for the reasons I've gone into during our discussion. The other examples deserve the same criticism with the same force, as they do the exact same thing. Or not! I don't think it tanks any story to make these sorts of statements, and in fact I think that's what gives them their power.

[Lurina]

By this definition there are absolutely zero things we can claim are self-evident truths about living beings then. No story talking about the human condition or nature could survive this criticism, as they all make generalizations that one could find individual edge cases for.

I don't know if I agree with that - there are a fair few self-evident truths that apply to all of humanity. Everyone begins as an innocent and gains knowledge and understanding to some degree over time. Everyone conscious has desires in some form, as consciousness exists as a mechanism for pursuing and accomplishing goals. Everyone will die as a matter of thermodynamics. I could go on.

I disagree with the second part too. Most stories that talk about the human condition don't actually try to frame their arguments as utterly universal - after all, most aren't trying to discuss the life and death of the entire universe, and you can just as easily capture most truths by saying "many humans" as "all humans" without venturing into false pretenses. Endwalker goes unusually big not only in scope, but in its moral and philosophical judgements, trying to assert many of them as absolutes.

The thing about writing a story this way (sorta cutting ahead to you thinking it's what makes it powerful in the final line of your post) is that it can evoke an almost life-changing response... From someone who already agrees with what it has to say. If what you want from a work is sheer catharsis, self-skepticism and reservation can actually be a kind of weakness. You want a narrative that will shout what feels true deep in your heart about the world. A narrative that makes you feel seen, like the creator is reaching out and saying, "I wrote this for you". It's validating and affirming - in the way that a neurotic text full of qualifiers could, depending on your personality, never achieve.

But inversely, in asserting those false (or at least, not completely true) absolutes, it compromises its own argument and becomes far worse at actually convincing people who don't already agree. This is why the story of the Ancients looks like movingly written bittersweet tragedy to you and disturbing genocide apologia to me. Endwalker asserts its beliefs about human nature as so self-evidently true it felt comfortable basing a story about the quasi-justified death of an entire world's worth of people on them-- And if you're already on board, the scale just makes the thesis more powerful.

But if you're not... It doesn't do anything to offset that, because it's treating the premises you disagree about as a given. So the dissonance hits you like a truck.

Hm, yeah, I think this kinda cuts to the core of why Endwalker has this group of people so doggedly bothered by it.

good place discourse

I haven't watched The Good Place since the ending came out... Hmmm, I guess I am being a little too nice to it when you lay out all the quotes like that. That's a shame. It didn't feel so preachy and absolutist at the time, but I guess you are in a different mentality watching a comedy than a 40 hour RPG. And time does entrench bias - it definitely had more ideas I agreed with than Endwalker, so I'm probably more inclined to judge it kindly post-hoc.

Like, I especially didn't remember it being so forceful in the way it talked about the door. I'm fine with the show asserting it gives greater definition to life for a lot of people, but it really does come across as being presented as a matter of generality that way...

Still, to give a more lukewarm defense, I do think you're conflating an aggressive thesis with untrue premises at a few points here - a lot of these are just things that the characters do or assert, not that are demonstrated to be self-evidently true. The statements the cast make about ennui, though about humanity, are ultimately just their personal opinions... Though it can be hard to tell with the kinda tone a comedy whether you're meant to understand them as such or not.

And again, it does go along way that it demonstrates an exception with Tahani, even if the means it gives to stave off ennui still aren't pro-hedonist. Even if it does make some bad arguments, I still do think The Good Place expresses more introspection and questions its own themes in general, and stand by what I said in regard to that.