Postmodernism is a good example of the kind of thing Jose Ortega y Gasset was worried about when he wrote Revolt of the Masses (1930).  When you let the uneducated masses into academe, they'll present their ill-formed ideas, intuitions really, as equal or superior to those that have been presented and accepted by an "establishment" of dedicated and careful thinkers.  The mass man who invades the halls of academia does so with shouts and ill-temper.  He demands to be heard, regardless of the worth of his message or the corruptness of his ulterior motive.  His ultimate motive is to "hijack" the discipline he has invaded, and impose his beliefs upon the entire, newly-undisciplined field.  The new imposters are prepared to shout down any dissenting belief, and label it, and its proponent, as "politically incorrect." Logic and objectivity are abandoned.  Agendas are advanced and conformity is imposed.  Free inquiry is lost, as the masses revolt.

The above complaint has a problem.  It is over-simplified.  If the doors to academia were kept closed, then academic discourse would remain stale, incomplete and flawed forever.  A reasonable balance is desired, but how?  Probably every new idea that has eventually gained unanimous acceptance was initially resisted by the "establishment."  I would be the last person to argue for keeping the doors to academia shut.

If only there were some way to identify those with ulterior motives, those who are unable to adopt an impassionate, objective perspective.  Must careful and honest thinkers reconcile themselves to the unending task of having to endure the new, more shrill marketplace for ideas?  Must the careful thinker always worry about a method for giving his message a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio that others of his kind will notice it, evaluate and possbly profit from it?  Among the entire comunity of those presenting themselves as intellectuals, there exists a small core of genuine thinkers, those whose "knowledge" is a closer approximation to the Truth than the "knowledge" of others.  This loosley connected network of advanced thinkers I shall refer to as the "cognoscenti."

Fortunately, the cognoscenti can recognize each other, after brief exposure, because the others strike such an unbelievable imposter's pose.  Normally, an imposter knows consciously that he is impostering.  I suspect that the imposters within academia harbor suspicions of their performance, at least subconsciously.  The cognoscenti, on the other hand, are ironically more prone to self-criticism (as this is the only path to Truth).  The holding of oneself to high standards is a conscious process, requiring un-neglectful vigilance.  The true thinker may appear less sure of himself to the casual person, but he knows, as do others like him, that this is the mark of a person engaged in a genuine and pure pursuit of understanding.  Since the imposters don't practice this self-restraint, they fail to recognize it in others, and thus fail to notice that their lack of it is a revealing trait that allows the cognocsenti to identify the frauds, and hence the true seeker.

It is helpful that the members of the "society of the cognoscenti" (Edman, 1938, Philosopher's Holiday, New York: Viking Press) are capable of  identifying each other.  It allows for a more efficient advance of every field of intellectual inquiry.  It reduces the damage done by pretenders.  But a penalty is paid, for it is time-consuming to sort through all manner of writings and seminars, and identify the good from the other; it is nevertheless a price that must be paid in order to add incrementally to one's own understanding. The process of advancing knowledge is laborious, and requires an abundance of patience, tolerance, self-scrutiny, honesty and energy.

This site opened:  December 11, 1998.   Last Update: December 11, 1998