Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[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.

[EaraGrace]

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.

I once again don't think its that unusual, in fact I'd go as far to say you'd have a harder time finding celebrated stories with any sort of moral or message that don't universalize. I don't think we have to agree with Endwalker's premise to recognize that. From Lord of the Rings to Breaking Bad to Crime and Punishment, authors are constantly speaking broadly about existence and humanity and a variety of concepts, all with an authoritative stance and perspective. Whether one wants to agree with Endwalker or any other media's themes is ultimately not what I'm arguing about here in this convo, but whether Endwalker does it differently. I don't think it does.

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 that's sort of the thing, though I do find myself agreeing with Endwalker on a lot, I don't actually have to in order to think it well written or at the very least undeserving of some of this heat. I didn't agree with ShB or it's messages despite how broad they were, but I still consider it to a well crafted piece of fiction. So why is that so difficult to do in this case? I'm sure you can find those who didn't find Heavensward's statements regarding war and generational guilt compelling or agreeable, so why was it ok to have broad generalities there and not here? That's ultimately the question I have to keep asking, because to me that's what the real problem is.

Now we've of course discussed that a bit already and explored what exactly people find issue with. But, as far as I can tell, when we applied those same issues to other forms of media talking about similar topics, they didn't pass that test either. Which kind of brings me to my current position, that it doesn't seem like that's a cardinal sin for a story and not really enough to justify the hate Endwalker has gotten around here.

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.

I think if a show has a number of characters with different perspectives, archetypes and beliefs agree something is a problem, talk about as if it is a universal one, work to find a solution and then resolve it, then we can confidently conclude the narrative is telling us its a universal issue.

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.

But I would go as far as to say that Tahani doesn't necessarily represent a third path but a winding version of the already established dichotomy. She does indeed say that she isn't choosing either option, and I do think that's very important, but then I look at the character arc for the person she's basing her new path on, Michael, and seeing how his arc ultimately ends up following that two choice dichotomy, I can’t honestly say she’s really choosing a third option. His decision to become human, suffer, die and then hopefully (the show portrays this as the desired outcome) walking through the Last Door and ending his existence is treated as a beautiful, positive, inevitable thing. Chidi's whole Buddhism speech says that life is like a wave returning to the ocean "where it came from, where it's supposed to be." I do think the show makes it pretty clear what is coming.

[Lurina]

I think if a show has a number of characters with different perspectives, archetypes and beliefs agree something is a problem, talk about as if it is a universal one, work to find a solution and then resolve it, then we can confidently conclude the narrative is telling us its a universal issue.

Okay, I was going to reply to the other parts of your post individually, but this really sums it up so well I might as well go for it directly.

Again, this goes back to what I was saying about you being kinda absolutist in your thinking. It feels as though you cannot or do not distinguish between a work asserting something aggressively in its thesis and pre-supposing it in its premises. A story can believe that something is "a universal issue" very strongly and still be making an honest argument so as it confines that declaration of universality to the thesis.

The way all people are depicted having responded to the pre-door Good Place is a pre-supposed universality, though a milder one than with the Plenty. This is a problem with the work's argument.

But the way that the characters interpret this reality and act based on it, however confidently they might do so, is just firmly asserting a thesis. It's the author putting forward that X=Y. (Again, the surrealism of/lack of absolute reality in comedy specifically can blur the lines a bit here, but this is generally true for fiction.) Likewise, showing the outcomes of their actions as positive is also part of the thesis so long as they don't assume anything universally true - "a lot of people felt much better now that the door was there" vs. "everyone felt better now that the door was there".

Or to bring it back to Endwalker, there's nothing wrong with the declarations the scions make in Ultima Thule, or even strictly speaking Venat's speech about the Sundering, even if what they assert is obviously what the writers believe and are trying to impart. The problem is only the pre-supposition, which has its roots in the absolutism.

I feel like if you can't understand this distinction, you're never going to be able to understand why people are so weird about Endwalker, or why a lot of works are controversial in general.

And again, when you draw this line, I feel like very few works - at least, very few interested in saying something substantial - break this rule. Like, (disregarding Lord of the Rings because it is an overtly religious story and doesn't really try to make arguments itself at all, and Crime and Punishment because I haven't seen it) you bring up Breaking Bad. Show me some ways you feel this breaks the fact>inference rule too, and I'll respond. Maybe that will give you a better idea of what I mean.

[EaraGrace]

And again, when you draw this line, I feel like very few works - at least, very few interested in saying something substantial - break this rule. Like, (disregarding Lord of the Rings because it is an overtly religious story and doesn't really try to make arguments itself at all, and Crime and Punishment because I haven't seen it) you bring up Breaking Bad. Show me some ways you feel this breaks the fact>inference rule too, and I'll respond. Maybe that will give you a better idea of what I mean.

Breaking bad is a very character driven show, yet at its core it holds there to be a universal constant. To quote Vince Gilligan:

If religion is a reaction of man, and nothing more, it seems to me that it represents a human desire for wrongdoers to be punished. I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end. I feel some sort of need for Biblical atonement, or justice, or something. I like to believe there is some comeuppance, that karma kicks in at some point, even if it takes years or decades to happen. My girlfriend says this great thing that's become my philosophy as well. 'I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell.'

This idea of cosmic karma is reflected in pretty much all the characters and their arc, including even the recent developments in Better Call Saul. Knowing how the characters end up, one sees this view of the world pretty much throughout the show, yet the show does nothing to justify this and simply holds that it is true and the viewers would agree. Bad people get bad ends, because they are bad. We don’t see this in the real world truthfully, horrific and cruel people pass away peacefully having lived happy lives while good people rot. Yet the story’s direction, it’s morals, it’s themes, and ultimately it’s conclusion, all rest on the understanding that the characters will get their comeuppance. They after all all do.

Now I’m going to be honest, I think you are completely utterly wrong in stating that only a few works breaks the rule. Nier pre-supposes that a life is without inherent meaning, and that without meaning or purpose life is inherently negative or painful. At no point does it justify this, it simply shows the reaction to it and the attempt to grapple with it. Persona 5 presupposes that people granted their every desire would wish for increasingly selfish things, and as a collective desire wish to be ruled. Novels like Crime and Punishment presuppose much about the nature of the world, what constitutes good, what traits humanity as a whole embodies, etc. Without these the premises for these stories would fall apart. That is where I believe your mistake is. The kinds of inferences Endwalker is criticized for are accepted in other media, baked into the very fabric of the stories themselves and yet no one questions them, until they feel so strongly about those assumptions that they can’t accept the premise.

I haven't seen Pleasantville, but Persona 5: The Royal is a very different to Endwalker. The narrative doesn't pre-suppose anything absolutely universal about human nature or even really assert that the villain is inherently making people's lives worse in an objective sense, but rather argues for anti-escapism for its own sake.

I very much don’t agree. The whole idea of the grail presupposes that people have a natural desire to be ruled, one that must be fought against. Hell even in that there’s the baked in assumption that being ruled truly is a bad thing. Compare the SMT series and it’s multiple endings in comparison to Persona 5, and it’s clear Persona 5 was made to assert the freedom ending is true. But is that really the case?