How does your first point contradict what I said about the irony of the postmodern condition? The leading postmodern thinkers would have inadvertently cast doubt on their authority. That's the problem with relativism or antirealism.

Your second paragraph seems to mix up positivism and science. Positivism is a philosophical worship of science, which hasn't produced many tangible benefits. Is philosophy supposed to have the same role as science? Why can't they have different benefits, so that philosophy should address the normative question of how we should live?

My thesis isn't weird just because it criticizes both sides. I'm trying to be neutral, to see things from different perspectives. Modernity has its upside and its downside. How is that balanced evaluation weird? As I say in the articles, I'm ambivalent about this historic turn of events. It's not obvious that liberalism (the elevation of the masses based on an ideal of equality) is overall a good thing.