Thread: The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

Originally Posted by Lyth

I always find it odd when someone uses the term 'platitude' as a rhetorical tool to make a point sound less valid. They're platitudes because they are truths that are so blatantly self-evident to most people and so often repeated that you're bored of hearing them. It's a bit like conceding that your views go against common sense.

Have you ever been served a bad platitude in a low point of your life?

Platitudes have a number of issues, one frequent among them is the people using them actually not understanding the reasoning behind them, hence using them incorrectly.

Venats reasoning was sound for a situation where there was no other reasonable choice but to accept, move on, and solve greater issues. Had the Ancients been on the same page it might've worked, but from their point of view the issue was all but resolved, and their life philosophy never actually failed. Venats argument would sound disconnected from the actual situation. (which feeds into another issue of platitudes where the deliverer just comes across as distant, preachy, disconnected and unempathetic even if they are correct)

Anyways I think my point is that they can be infuriating even when used correctly at the best of times with the best of intentions. Venats case was... some of these.

That being said, it might just be a careless mistranslation on my part. The corresponding word in my language has a strictly negative (and worse) connotation, and I never heard anyone use 'platitude' in a better context.