In my view, philosophy comes down to this: the extent to which we can demonstrate to others that our own sense of reality is either embedded in truth objectively [and thus accessible to all rational minds] or is, instead, reflective only our own particular existential interpretation of what constitutes a “reasonable” assessment of reality from moment to moment as dasein.
If the “self” ceaselessly constructs, deconstructs and reconstructs fragments of “reality” is it not, in turn, merely a reflection of its own uniqurely existential moments from birth to death? And, if so, how then can we ever trust that each moment of reflection itself is not just a calcultated assumption regarding the relationship between what we think is reasonable [in a sea of conflicting variables] and what may or may not be construed as reasonable from a broader or more sophisticated viewpoint?
Whatever we know about something…there is always more to know; and it can always be viewed from different points of view.
Further, to the extent that so-called “postmodernist” thinkers exclude their own point of view from their own point of view is the extent to which they offer us just another subjective narrative. After all, how many are able to grasp the inherent irony embedded in deconstructing an old text only to invent a new one in its place?
We are all, it seems, in the same boat here philsophically. And it is only a matter of acknowledging it is 1] riddled with holes and 2] that the holes cannot be patched by sticking words in them.
The boats are, in fact, leaking like a sieve as new experiences, new relationships, new points of view deluge us incessantly on our journey from dust to dust. We can either learn to live with incessant contingency, chance and change [the inherent “agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”] or we can invent psychological defense mechanisms like Self or Enlightenment or God.