First things first, who deleted my previous comments? I thought they were quite inoffensive and rather witty myself. Whatever the merits of the latter claim, I did not, more specifically, use foul language, call for someone's murder, or anything of that kind. Whoever deleted them owes me an explanation, at the very least, and I must say I am fairly disappointed in this forum at the moment.
Your post tells me that you haven't paid much attention to what I have said to you. I was very clear that I didn't have the time to get into all the reasons why I am opposed to postmodernism, so I merely offered a brief precis as to why I have become opposed to it.
That being said, there is a very simple reason I implied earlier for why I reject postmodernism, which is supplied by postmodernism itself. To wit, if all truth is socially constructed, and there is no objective standard of truth, then I am free to reject postmodernism at will and without reason.
Thus, in one important sense, postmodernism cannot be "fought." It can only be dismissed. Nothing I say to a postmodernist need ever make any difference to them, since they have rejected the very principles with which we might decide some point of dispute. I'm not interested in shadow boxing and so will stick to fighting real opponents.
Someone who labels Schopenhauer's metaphysics nonsense, which I have read many people do both in the secondary literature and not, is different from my labeling postmodernism nonsense. In the former case, one applies the label based on having deduced counter-arguments to those one takes Schopenhauer to be presenting. That is to say, one rejects Schopenhauer based on the same rules of the game he himself employs. If someone rejects Schopenhauer thusly, I have absolutely no issue with them.
Now, my rejecting postmodernism as nonsense is primarily due to the fact that they reject those rules, which in turn enables me to reject it. Once you say that words no longer correspond to reality, that they construct reality, or that nothing is outside the text, etc then we cannot but talk past each other. Such claims, which amount to epistemological and moral relativism, are self-refuting, in that they assume that which they attempt to disprove. But if the person to whom I am speaking still refuses to cede this point, then I'm done and dusted with the whole affair.
certain ways of looking at the world (our lenses, if you will) can and do cloud judgment and perception. But instead of seeing that as evidence that the concept of truth is incoherent, I see it as a reminder to consider my own biases, and the biases of others, no matter how objective they sound. — anonymous66
A trivial point made and realized by those who aren't postmodernists. Notice also that you were able to make it without tortuous vocabulary. That's my only comment, as the rest of your post appears sensible to me.