Postmodernism is still quite a powerful sect of belief in today's society; radical skepticism, subjectivism and nihilism seem almost undefeatable because of their premises. That is, if one accepts postmodernism, making an attack against postmodernism is essentially powerless, because it would only show both that we are incapable of knowing (even through the lens of postmodernism) and that any attack that could be made would be a product of the person and not necessarily the truth (which is totally unknowable.)

I have my reservations about postmodernism, and most people generally do as well when first confronted with the idea. Certainly, it seems like we know things, we can predict things, and we act in ways which seem to prove this true. I have no fear of my gasoline becoming urine while I'm driving my car. I do not worry that when I type on my computer that my monitor will turn into a snake and attack me. I do not question whether or not I will be propelled forward if I walk in such a direction. Yet, idealistically, it would seem that all these cases could happen, if we are to abstain from making claims to truth. So, then, what I am left with is a totally chaotic reality which has no order, meaning or knowable existence. I can not appeal to any authorities, because all authorities are flawed in their own ways; science is too empirical, religion is too ideal, social convention is biased by the society, and so on. I am left without a guide to follow except for my own intuitions and the idea that "all people are right in their own way."

Ideally, I think postmodernism is problematic. That is, I do not think postmodernism accepts how powerful ideas are; the movement is too caught up in deconstructing every idea they can that they forget what it is they are deconstructing and that some ideas exist in reality because of their use and not merely because of convention. I would contend that postmodernism seems to merely disregard the power of ideas; that is, it seems to accept that people are a product of what they believe, but fails to make the correlation that if someone has an idea which is detrimental to their life, or the lives of others, that this idea is detrimental and can cause great harm. A postmodernist wouldn't want to make such a claim, stating that "I am in no position to judge;" but, surely, thousands of years of social progress can't be totally arbitrary, can it? If we are in no state to judge other's ideas, only understand them, what is the point to the understanding? Worst of all, I think many postmodernists are so caught up in understanding other's ideas that they forget that these ideas can be judged based on some types of reasoning. That is, we can talk about the worth of an idea versus another based on contexts and what tools we use to measure them; whether they be moral tools, logical tools, or religious tools; and that these tools offer us some method and reasoning to follow to create ourselves as people rather than be content with being somebody who cannot, in good conscience, make judgements, and thus, progress in life. (A life without judgements is a life of blind adherence to whatever situation is presented. Attempting to change the situation shows that you have made a judgement that another situation would be better, and thus, you can not be fully prescribing to the postmodern ethic. A true postmodernist can not think for himself, and expects the same from everyone else.) Furthermore, a moral subjectivist needs to bat an eye at things most people find morally reprehensible; Nazism was "just a product of the societal factors in Germany during the time. The Nazis can not be blamed." This seems nonsensical to me; it seems like postmodernism wishes to nullify the existence of evil by merely shrugging at it and saying that "Don't worry, it wasn't your fault, it is just your nature." I think the standpoint of "no standpoint" shouldn't be used so hastily; that is, if there is evidence and tools to analyze this evidence, then it is acceptable to do so. "No standpoint" would be reserved for when there is not enough information to reasonably analyze anything and all the tools which one could use provide no more use in such a context than any other (This, I think, is the realm of "absolute knowledge", that is, whatever knowledge is outside the grasp of human understanding. I would contend that "absolute knowledge" doesn't exist in any sort of specific way, but is merely a function of our language and intuitions to describe what it is we do not understand. "Absolute knowledge", then, is merely potential knowledge, for when we learn something more about "absolute knowledge", we also raise more questions and expand the potential power of our consciousness.) However, knowledge and ideas are important; people act on what they believe and thus, ideas not only build nations but destroy them, not only increase the quality of life but diminish it, and not only help people live but also kill. To simply say that no side is always the best side of argument for us to be "truthful" is to disregard that life does matter, to us, viscerally, and that we do have our own goals and desires. A human with no desires for anything is, essentially, dead or waiting to die.

The first point I want to make is that such a statement (moral subjectivism) implies there is no such thing as 'free will.' While I certainly would agree that there are limits to how free our will is and that our will is heavily influenced by our situation, nothing would ever change if everyone merely was following their instinctual drives and the will of the society. No new ideas could be produced, and thus, we shouldn't have houses; we should still be living in the forest with the rest of the animals.

Second, I would like to say that there must be a way to transcend postmodernism, since the end result of knowledge certainly couldn't only be confusion. Our lives have patterns, and there are many different tools we use to predict such patterns: cause and effect, psychology, political science, economics, mechanistic science, etc. If these tools have uses, then how can truth be totally arbitrary and unknowable? How do these tools work in a totally random, causal-less world that is completely unknown to the human mind? These things are all human inventions which have proved extremely useful over the centuries. How can a postmodernist account for this if all ideas are essentially equal in worth? How can we account for the fact that some systems of belief offer us more productive solutions than others?

Furthermore, postmodernism, in critiquing other points of view, proves itself wrong. Postmodernism uses tools such as reason, psychology and sociology to show how biased (or flawed) other positions are. However, such statements are claims to truth; the antithesis to the postmodern ethic.

In the end, I think what postmodernists tend to forget is that their theory is the same as any other theory and should be integrated into their conceptual tool-set rather than used as, exclusively, 'the best tool.' It has its uses, strengths, and weaknesses, but it fails at becoming what everyone wishes their philosophy to be: a full textbook to describe life. Of course, the postmodernists feel that they have sidestepped that claim by claiming that statement as true as a foundation, but such a foundation does not support any room for truth and action, and thus, is deficient as a life philosophy or a bastion of truth.