Postmodernist philosophy is famous for being paradoxical. Claims like "the truth is that there is no truth" or "everything is relative" are popular - especially among academics. Many proponents are even OK with explicit contradictions in their worldview. To me, a contradiction is a demonstration of error, and not caring about intellectual consistency is a sign of dogmatism and irrationalism. But according to Dr. Stephen Hicks, that's because I have a certain psychological response to contradictions. Postmodernists have a different psychological response, and so they aren't as bothered by inconsistency. Dr. Hicks thinks it's possible to be intellectually respectable while defending internally-inconsistent views. I don't think it's possible. What do you think?