Well I don't know enough about postmodernism to really profess to be something especially different from it. I haven't studied it beyond a cursory examination. I am quite the opposite, however, of a critical race theorist or any of that bs.

Well, there is no point at which we suddenly gain certainty that we are right about what a philosopher is saying, as far as I know, but there are clues that we are getting it right when we are actually looking at the problems that arose in the context of that philosopher's life, and what was going on when the person said or did X, which gives meaning to X. Context is key. Application to our own lives and current problems, as well as thought experiments and deduction, can also test these ideas to see if they hold up, and give us insight regarding what a phrase might have meant to someone, in light again of the context and the meaning they put upon words in their relation to concepts and to concrete things. There is, objectively, meaning behind a person's ideas, and this can be approximated through conjecture in light of evidence, deduction, and critical examination.

The fundamental nature of meaning itself can also be understood to overlap with other frameworks which happen to use the same symbols for different things, or different symbols for the same things, like how Japanese people call green things a shade of blue. This is something basic to the interplay of reality and human concepts, and so one's invoking God as a person does not need to contradict another man's expression of God as a creative unraveling of the universe into all the beauty and good that He provides. There is no clear and certain distinction there that is innate in the words themselves, so I have seen nothing to adequately refute my interpretation thus far, and I like my weird interpretation.