Explanation of the concept

I agree with you.
The question is what does he get out of this paradoxical skepticism?
It's a “great” argument for practically any subject (what you see here you don't see there, how do you deal with it if there is no such thing “there”) but ultimately reality requires us to assume that there is objectivity. Even if you use semantic manipulations.

The question is, how am I supposed to act when a postmodernist wants me to prove that 1+1=2. Do you have a conclusive or plausible argument that you can deal with?

There is no way to deal with fundamental skepticism. I don't think anyone really believes in it, but there is no way to shut up anyone who says they do.

If I make a claim about the implications of essential skepticism, will it be considered irrelevant?

That is, I will claim that his skepticism is valid only for the philosophical level, but it is impossible to apply it in any situation (because every situation is based on basic assumptions), so that in fact his own life contradicts his belief, and he uses it only as a philosophical tool.

For example: a person goes to work because he believes that this is the only way he can exist. (Who said that? Isn't this an unstated belief? And if he has to, why?)

On the other hand, philosophy as a whole is not always applied in everyday life (and is it a good thing?).

If I make such a claim, will I be considered irrelevant? Is the postmodernist a fundamental skeptic?

Thank you!

Postmodernist is just a word. You have to talk about a skeptic. What he will tell you is that he acts like that just because he feels like it. He has no justification.

Another thing I can't understand..:

How is it possible that many philosophers/scientists throughout history have not given importance to the question "what is the other missing, who doesn't agree with me?"
Especially after dealing with the question of human evil.

And why did Nietzsche conclude that therefore there is no absolute truth.
This is an outrageous assumption, even if we all cannot know whether we perceive it, it does not mean that there is no subjective idea that synchronizes with it.
Could it be that his emerging mental problems caused him to have far-reaching insights?

Why does it seem as if the postmodern idea attacks the secular perception more? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Thanks!

I have written more than once that in most disputes in philosophy, either it is not a dispute (but different formulations of the same thing, or just two different aspects, or different definitions of concepts), or one is simply wrong. There are few disputes with two sides, and there, even if you really try to understand the other, you will not necessarily be convinced.
There is no such thing as the ‘postmodern idea’. There is skepticism, and it attacks every idea.

“A true skeptic doubts this too”

From your words it emerges again and again that you do not believe in opinions, but rather your mental state uses opinions to align with thought, but what determines is the mental state…

Skepticism is not a mental state but a logical research tool.
There is no such thing as a “skeptic”. Just as there is no such thing as a “believer”.

Every person always doubts and always believes, these are tools of the mind that can be put to useful use.