My point is that the postmodern intellectuals led rather than followed the transition to the (intellectual) "postmodern condition". The 50s, 60s, and 70s were socially still very "modern" in this regard (plenty of respect for intellectual endeavors) but intellectually very "postmodern" (outside of STEM and some analytic philosophy).

My point is also that although technically the ambitions were overstated to the point of impossibility, the positivist approach (1) produced tangible benefits for the non-intellectual, and (2) is (now) pretty popular. You then turn around and complain about how philosophy needs to be about people's lives, and how the intellectual approach is disfavored.

It's really weird: in one breath you bemoan the loss of an aspect of society, and in the next you attack that part which has been doing best to retain the aspect and pine for the part which has been doing best to destroy it.