What lore do you ignore?

[Cilia]

It's funny that people like this because it has a positive spin, but I don't disagree with your read. And who is the Ubermensch in the FF14 universe? Zenos. I've stated multiple times that Zenos is the embodiment of Venat's philosophy. But people don't like that.

I like that, because I like Zenos as a character. My moral disgust with his actions doesn't mean I can't admire his fiercely individualist philosophy, and the big lesson he has to learn in Endwalker (that you have to care about what other people want instead of selfishly pursuing your own interests to get anywhere) elevates him from villain to nominal anti-hero by the end.

My issue with Venat wasn't that she lived by her own ideals. But that she forced everyone else to live by her ideals by devolving them and shaping their beliefs for the next twelve thousand years. You and I don't seem to disagree on what happened, we just seem to disagree on if that's cool or monstrous.

While it's true that Venat blasted humanity back to the Stone Age (so to speak), she never shaped their beliefs in any way, shape, or form that's been shown. Other than people referring to the planet as Hydaelyn (instead of its Ancient-given name Etheirys, with the reason behind this unclear) and indirectly intervening whenever the Ascians step up their game, she is shown to have an extremely hands-off approach to the advancement of civilization or direction of religion. It's unclear how or why the Eorzeans came to worship the Twelve, but other than that no religion is shown to have any relation to Hydaelyn whatsoever.

It's not that I find Venat's actions cool (or not monstrous), but they're a (fictional) historical thing that happened, and arguing about whether it was cool or monstrous strikes me as wasteful. What's important is whether or not her plan worked (it did), whether or not anyone had another plan to actually deal with the root cause or even wanted to do so (they didn't), and where we can go from here (anywhere we want, as opposed to the Ancients' / Ascians' plan leaving everyone bound to the Amaurotine ideals that indirectly caused the mess to begin with).

I mean, nihilism is not inherently negative. And I think one of the many abstract things Endwalker is focused on, many of which are related, is a very similar fundamental question: 'if life has no meaning, what do you do with it'. And your answer is ultimately personal, but that doesn't mean it has to be individualist: remember that the people who we directly see stare down the End of Days and overcome it are Thavnairians, who end up leaning on faith and religion, an ultimately extremely communal subject. Most of the role quests are also about addressing communal pains and helping each other.

Nihilism is just a philosophical stepping stone towards anti-nihilism ("nothing has any meaning" -> "nothing has any meaning so I will impose my own meaning on it").

That said I acknowledge the story concludes that people live for others' sake (see Zenos learning this lesson, above) but would argue that's largely a consequence of the Eastern collectivist mindset bleeding through in spite of the Western existentialist philosophy it leans so heavily on. An indidivual's "answer" doesn't necessarily have to be individualistic, but it has to be something you reach on your own in order to live a truly fulfilling life.