What relativism truly is and what it implies on a deeper level will need to be explored later. For now, let us remain content with this surface-level understanding and ask ourselves whether our era has indeed abandoned the idea of objective values.

On closer examination, we see that no such abandonment has occurred. First, there is a resurgence of religious sentiment, and even fanaticism. A religious believer does not attribute merely subjective value to their God; they confer upon Him full objective value—this is all the more true for a fanatic, who would never willingly rush towards death for something they deemed only subjectively valuable. More broadly, the violence that shakes the world suggests that most people continue to believe in the objectivity of value.

Shall we then conclude that this abandonment is genuinely widespread among the 'people who matter', those within the 'knowledgeable' circles? Even within the academic and intellectual community, this abandonment is far from complete. A number of recent attempts to establish the objectivity of value, especially moral value, are beginning to surface: M. Conche (Le fondement de la morale), A. Léonard (Le fondement de la morale), R. Misrahi (Qu'est-ce que l'éthique?), H. Putnam (The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and other Essays), D. Wiggins, (Needs, Values, Truth), to name a few.
Therefore, if the concept of objective value has been abandoned, it has not been by humanity as a whole but by certain segments of it.

Strictly speaking, we live in an era where relativism is more openly expressed than ever before. However, it would be a mistake to assume that relativism is the only valid perspective of our time. If it were, it would imply that our era has a horizon, a viewpoint that encompasses and gives meaning to all others—namely, relativism itself.
On the contrary, our era is unique in that it allows all axiological theories to exist 'side by side': objectivism and relativism, optimism and nihilism, atheism and fanaticism, and so on. Thus, it seems fitting to describe the post-modern era as an 'era without a horizon', where no single axiological theory holds sway over the others. To think otherwise would misinterpret the insights—and the deep truth—of thinkers like Lyotard and Sartre. It would mean continuing to see our time as a melody rather than a cacophony.

The literary metaphor that best illustrates post-modernism might be Lautréamont's image of a chance meeting on a dissection table between an umbrella and a sewing machine. This nonsensical convergence of unrelated objects represents the aimless post-modern juxtaposition of incommensurable axiological theories.
To reduce post-modernism to mere relativism would be to confine human history to a 'grand narrative', if not a children’s tale - Marxism in the past, relativism today. In contrast, what truly characterises our time is the cacophony of competing hierarchies of values, which, unleashed by liberal democracy, assert themselves with intensity, colliding in both rhetoric and conflict.

Thus, our world is not one of meaninglessness but rather one of the proliferation and assertion of all possible meanings.