Does Post-structuralism talk in terms of many structures?

There is a remarkable thing that I had recently encountered in John Hospers Philosophical Analysis: That which explains everything explains nothing. Indeed the quest for an all encompassing law or theory goes on without bothering to halt and reflect at this nickel of truth. Why do men behave the way they behave? Do all men have the same feelings and interests? What is the nature of our world and our existence? Such and various other questions trouble us. Those who try to answer this tangle would himself be drawn into it and no sooner a man tries to explain this tangle with a theory than his own theory becomes a part of the tangle. It is futile to try, but then, something is better than nothing (although nothing is better than nonsense). It has occurred to my immature mind that perhaps words and explanations make sense within the particular boundaries of reasoning that produce them. I am just putting forth my own thought. We shall have to start with a statement a priori that if there is volition, there is a purpose. When you have a will that means you necessarily have a purpose. That being so, it only remains to define that purpose, although there is a rationale preceding purpose that tells why there should be a purpose in the first place. There are according to me biological residues that lead men to fulfill his ancient needs. There is a transcendental rationale that creates purpose apart from the gross world, and there is a practical rationale pertaining to the world where purpose follows the action immediately. Hence, when we have a purpose, it itself is a cause of our work in disguise, it is what perpetuates work. This is in some sense a kind of time travel, where purpose flies back into the past to initiate the work. As for all great men, known or unknown in the world, some saw their purpose as practical, some transcendental.