>>31908469>What's the difference between post-modernism and nihilism?
The degree of optimism, I guess.
I'm going to be honest. I've been studying philosophy for a good while.
In actual philosophical academic circles, "nihimism" is not really considered a very relevant term. Or more precisely, it's just a (generally negatively connotated) attitude without any philosophical depth or solid backbone. It was first used by Augustine, as far as I know, merely in the sense of "atheism, refusal to be open to the beauty of the world" (which was to Augustine the primary proof of God's existence).
Some people call Nietzsche a nihilist, but I think it's incorrect. At any way, the term is more of a pupular, public idea akin to scepticism.
Postmodernism does not see it's lack of any epistemological system as a possitive, a source of endless optimism. They don't believe anything can be "objectively right", but that does not deminish the value of the statement in their eyes - to them, nothing is more right than anything else, but everything is equally valuable.
Postmodernism sets as it's main (and possibly only) value in subjectivity, and individuality.
Individual statements - no matter how poorly argued they might be, are still IMMENSLY valuable to the, as they are representations of our individuality and our uniqueness. To them, making judgements about the world is not futile (as, as far as I understand it, Nihilism tends to have it), but it's a joyous celebration of our variety and individuality.
They just find the idea that any individual judgement could be proclaimed better than any other unacceptable. Everybody is right - in their own way - it's just that nobody is more right than anybody else.
It's a giant way to avoid any possible criticisms every leveled at you without ever losing credibility to your claims, if you ask me.