Dear Mike
>>Just so we're clear, how is post modern nihilism different than nihilism?<<
Hmm. Well, rather than agonising over the difficulties inherent in nihilism, the post modern approach is mild annoyance or "Cheerful Nihilism", a sang froid acceptance of the meaninglessness of it all.
Sound like you? It wasn't an attack, I leave that to more experienced philosophers ;-) .
>>Anyways, I still would like to hear why you think there's a meaning to life. If you don't want to tell me why you think that, you can just say so.<<
As I keep saying, we cannot engage if every point of view is non-binding and there is no agreed premise from which to start. In my frame of reference, a Monty-Pythonic "contradiction, not argument" is pointless.
How about this. *You* propose a basic premise we can agree re life/morality/virtue and we can argue from there.
Regards
JR
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1