A game for 4 year olds

[Alleo]

That philosophy is one I just fundamentally cannot agree with.

Its something we as humans can never really get because we are not immortal and we have enough suffering in our lifes. But I can see that a world where there is only pure harmony, no conflict (not even a small one between individuals) can get stale with time. It seems that their lifes were just the same day in, day out. If you have everything you can get, what do you look forward to? Of course it still needed Meteion and her questions that drove them over the edge but I can see it.

That in my opinion does not mean that we cant work towards a brighter future or that everybody has to constantly suffer. No I think it just means that perfection is not something we should want. Because in the very end it could lead to a utter meaningless boring life.

A life where (as Cleretic pointed out) they did not even have to eat anymore. So what do you do the whole day? Sounds absolutely awesome for a small amount of time (like our own limited life on earth) but absolutely horrible if you have the infinity before you.

[Brinne]

Its something we as humans can never really get because we are not immortal and we have enough suffering in our lifes. But I can see that a world where there is only pure harmony, no conflict (not even a small one between individuals) can get stale with time.

This begs the question, though, of who and what this portrayal and this theme is for. If it's something that can never really apply to us as humans, what is the audience meant to extract meaningfully from "a theoretical (but admittedly impossible outside of constructed thought exercises) existence that is too good or is absent of the things that make you suffer is actually bad?" What utility or urgency is there in exploring, in the world we live in now, "if you think about it being hungry can lead to good things actually" in a world that continues to struggle with mass hunger and poverty? Does it have any actual utility apart from self-satisfied navel-gazing about how, really, our current existence is basically the best one possible, we're number one, etc, etc?

[DPZ2]

This begs the question, though, of who and what this portrayal and this theme is for. If it's something that can never really apply to us as humans, what is the audience meant to extract ...

The questions you raise are older than the written word. From Hesiod's Golden Age to the Hebrew Garden of Eden to Plato's Republic and, much later. Thomas More's Utopia, there has always been a nostalgia for the 'good place' that we have, somehow, lost.

That we can even conceive of such a place, and strive toward it, is what makes us human.

The problem is that such a Golden Age has been achieved and lost, time and time again, without reason or purpose. The story of the Ancients reminds me of the tale of Atlantis, that perfect society that was lost to the waves during a catastrophic event.

The Ancient world was not perfect. It does not appear as though the Convocation 'ruled' the entire world, nor that those in Amaurot were all that concerned about those who were currently experiencing the Final Days "across the pond". There was debate on whether it would be a good test of some new concepts, but the reported death and destruction did not seem to affect the Amaurotines greatly.

Perhaps the level of Utopian ideal was not as worldwide-citizens-joined-together as we infer from the story line. Perhaps their society was on its way to becoming the Bronze or Heroic Age, having lost the Golden Age in times long past.

[Brinne]

The problem is that such a Golden Age has been achieved and lost, time and time again, without reason or purpose. The story of the Ancients reminds me of the tale of Atlantis, that perfect society that was lost to the waves during a catastrophic event.

I mean, sure. If what we take from the story of the Ancients is the stark reality of "sometimes bad things happen to good people for absolutely no reason, and we have to find ways to cope with that fact," then I'm fully on board and even enthusiastic about exploring that. As always, though, what I take objection to is the simultaneous, contrary searching for some kind of cultural reason or failing that they "fell." Are we trying to touch on the existential problem of meaningless things happening without reason, or are we trying to trace back and find a reason? Or are we confused and going back and forth on it from one scenario to another as needed, especially with different writers helming at different times?

I'm sure that to some, there's an argument of "why can't it be both?", but I think part of the issue is that in this, to a degree, it can't be both. "Actionably avoid their mistakes" inherently undermines "accept the difficult truth that they were destroyed for no discernible reason," especially without a lot of careful nuance EW, well, isn't great about having.