[vigraxtru]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
The key problem for postmodernism is how do you advocate anything if nothing is true. I doubt any good postmodernist would assert that "nothing is true."
"Nothing is uniquely true" is more likely.
Or perhaps "There's always an alternate narrative."

Problem?
'A question raised for consideration or solution?' Yes.
'Trouble: a source of difficulty?' No.

So, to paraphrase:
The key matter of inquiry for postmodernism is 'How do you advocate anything if no frame of reference is uniquely true?'

Seems like a silly use of the brainpower available to such people.
I dunno.

Seems like a reasonable thing to me, given that a key source of difficulty for 20th century thought was "How do you advocate anything if nothing is objective?"