Wokeism of Analytic Philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wokeism in this case is taken as:

Wokeism is weaponized personal grievances masquerading as a genuine social concern. It’s defined by its fraudulent nature, as being distinct from legitimate social grievances. Wokeism only knows outrage — it knows not empathy for victims.
Link:

In a similar sense, analytic philosophy used "wokeism" to shut and 'kill' off rivals who are not align with their beliefs and ideology.

Analytic philosophy, a loosely related set of approaches to philosophical problems, dominant in Anglo-American philosophy from the early 20th century, that emphasizes the study of language and the logical analysis of concepts.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-philosophy

The main grounding of Analytic Philosophy is that of Philosophical-Realism [PR], i.e. external reality is absolutely mind-independent or human-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Antirealists [various] reject PR because PR's absolute mind-independence is not tenable and PR is based on very primal thinking driven by an evolutionary default and adopted as an ideology.

Analytic Philosophy was most dominant during its heydays of Logical Positivism [LP -now defanged] whence it went out in all its way to 'kill' all beliefs which do not align with their analyticism.
Whilst LP is no more the fad, the main themes of analytic philosophy [on a dying trend] is still considered very active within the present philosophical circle; however the professional analytical philosophers being defanged are more humble and less intellectually violent.

However we have oldies of philosophical realism and analytic philosophy [absolute mind-independence] who are still very active and making lots of noises in this forum, e.g. PH, FDP, Atla, and others of the same breed with their 'wokiest' thinking and attitude. Some [not all] are very intellectually violent.

Here is a research paper on how analytic philosophy used organization control [since early 1900s to 1969 - "up to the present"] to enable their pariah ideology to dominate the current philosophy atmosphere.

Analytic Philosophy, 1925-1969: Emergence, Management and Nature.
By Joel Katzav & Vaesen

1. Introduction
The present paper argues that Analytic Philosophy, at least during the period 1925-1969, was a form of Critical philosophy that used institutional control in order to promote itself and marginalise rivals.
This institutional control, it will further be argued, partly explains the emergence and eventual dominance of Analytic Philosophy in Great Britain and the United States of America.
More specifically, already documented takeovers of the journals Mind and The Philosophical Review (PR) by Analytic Philosophers (Katzav and Vaesen 2017a and 2017b) are here shown to be part of a pattern.
The pattern is of philosophers with a shared commitment to a form of Critical philosophy
either (a) founding journals that are dedicated to promoting that form of Critical philosophy
or (b) using journals with a history of openness to diverse philosophical approaches to promote that form of Critical philosophy at the expense of rivals.
It is this use of journals which, in turn, plays a role in explaining the emergence and dominance of Analytic Philosophy.
Link

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re the philosophical realists [analytic] attack on morality

Re A J Ayers on Morality:

as in the declaration that metaphysics, centrally understood as putative knowledge of a transcendent reality, and also religion and morality, are nonsense.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/AyerbyTH.html

Its general view on ethics:

An influential debate in analytic ethics, for example, concerned the question of whether sentences that express moral judgments (e.g., “It is wrong to tell a lie”) are descriptions of some feature of the world, in which case the sentences can be true or false, or are merely expressions of the subject’s feelings—comparable to shouts of “Bravo!” or “Boo!”—in which case they have no truth-value at all.
Thus, in this debate the philosophical problem of the nature of right and wrong was treated as a problem about the logical or grammatical status of moral statements.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

Analytic Philosophy view on 'what is fact';
Often presented by PH;

• What is fact is a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affairs, just-is that is absolutely independent of the mind/human and it exists regardless of human opinions, beliefs and judgement, and so exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

The above is not realistic especially where there are many other counter views which are more realistic i.e. what is fact is contingent upon a human-based framework and system;
see various views below:

What is Fact - WIKI
Etymology and usage
In philosophy
Correspondence and the slingshot argument
Compound facts
Fact–value distinction
Factual–counterfactual distinction
In mathematics
In science
The scientific method
In history
In law
Legal pleadings

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Some points from the article:

Similarly, according to Critical philosophy, philosophy should avoid going beyond established belief.
In addition, however, the end of the Second World War saw a period during which publishing became important to getting and keeping an academic position (Nee and Ingram 1998).
And the sectarian attitude of relevant Analytic philosophers would then help to explain why, once they had sufficient control, they let nobody else in.

Third, in addition to sectarianism at philosophy journals, sectarianism in teaching at PhD-awarding philosophy departments and in hiring philosophers (independently of their records of publication) is likely to have substantially affected the trajectory of philosophy in Britain and America.

Further, the conjunction of the high institutional confidence in Critical philosophy with the already noted apparent absence of sufficiently strong arguments against Speculative philosophy suggests that Analytic Philosophy can perhaps be further characterised as a form of dogmatism, where dogmatism is here understood to involve a degree of commitment to a position that goes beyond what is justified by evidence or argumentation.

Thus, the fundamental shift towards Critical philosophy that came with Analytic Philosophy was substantially externally driven. Indeed, it was, on the face of things, not adequately justified.

[accelafine]

Could you explain what the otherwise blank comments with the word 'notes:' on them mean? I feel as if the answer is obvious but I just can't work it out. Thanks in advance.

[tastycinnamon]

Although each movement or academic field should have its power dynamics examined, the broad generalizations made here might oversimplify difficult problems.

[Atla]

Wokeism in this case is taken as:

Wokeism is weaponized personal grievances masquerading as a genuine social concern. It’s defined by its fraudulent nature, as being distinct from legitimate social grievances. Wokeism only knows outrage — it knows not empathy for victims.
Link:

In a similar sense, analytic philosophy used "wokeism" to shut and 'kill' off rivals who are not align with their beliefs and ideology.

Analytic philosophy, a loosely related set of approaches to philosophical problems, dominant in Anglo-American philosophy from the early 20th century, that emphasizes the study of language and the logical analysis of concepts.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-philosophy

The main grounding of Analytic Philosophy is that of Philosophical-Realism [PR], i.e. external reality is absolutely mind-independent or human-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Antirealists [various] reject PR because PR's absolute mind-independence is not tenable and PR is based on very primal thinking driven by an evolutionary default and adopted as an ideology.

Analytic Philosophy was most dominant during its heydays of Logical Positivism [LP -now defanged] whence it went out in all its way to 'kill' all beliefs which do not align with their analyticism.
Whilst LP is no more the fad, the main themes of analytic philosophy [on a dying trend] is still considered very active within the present philosophical circle; however the professional analytical philosophers being defanged are more humble and less intellectually violent.

However we have oldies of philosophical realism and analytic philosophy [absolute mind-independence] who are still very active and making lots of noises in this forum, e.g. PH, FDP, Atla, and others of the same breed with their 'wokiest' thinking and attitude. Some [not all] are very intellectually violent.

Here is a research paper on how analytic philosophy used organization control [since early 1900s to 1969 - "up to the present"] to enable their pariah ideology to dominate the current philosophy atmosphere.

Analytic Philosophy, 1925-1969: Emergence, Management and Nature.
By Joel Katzav & Vaesen

1. Introduction
The present paper argues that Analytic Philosophy, at least during the period 1925-1969, was a form of Critical philosophy that used institutional control in order to promote itself and marginalise rivals.
This institutional control, it will further be argued, partly explains the emergence and eventual dominance of Analytic Philosophy in Great Britain and the United States of America.
More specifically, already documented takeovers of the journals Mind and The Philosophical Review (PR) by Analytic Philosophers (Katzav and Vaesen 2017a and 2017b) are here shown to be part of a pattern.
The pattern is of philosophers with a shared commitment to a form of Critical philosophy
either (a) founding journals that are dedicated to promoting that form of Critical philosophy
or (b) using journals with a history of openness to diverse philosophical approaches to promote that form of Critical philosophy at the expense of rivals.
It is this use of journals which, in turn, plays a role in explaining the emergence and dominance of Analytic Philosophy.
Link

Just VA whining about the fact that the world is probably real and not just the figment of his imagination, so he will have to adapt to others.

[Iwannaplato]

AP argued its case and thought other positions were false.
Exactly as you do.
And the professional philosophers who did this did not call their opponents primitive, violent, philosophical gnats chasing an illusion.

Seriously, you've fallen off the deep end.

You're re-defining wokism and sticking it's square peg in the AP hole.
This entire post is an ad hom, insult - though, of course, you have always asserted that you don't start with insults and ad hom, but you are, [like the hero in a film] not going to put up with that treatment and will respond in kind.

Only here, and in many other threads, you insult all people in philosophical categories you disagree with.

And you can't even notice that actually you are doing precisely what you are saying the analytical philosophers did and do.

If only you could manage to be embarrassed by this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Could you explain what the otherwise blank comments with the word 'notes:' on them mean? I feel as if the answer is obvious but I just can't work it out. Thanks in advance.

Often the thread will be spewed with nonsense [within page(s)].

The "notes" are reservation of any relevant critical points that I come across later in the discussion or upon further reading. It is a very common thing for me.
I make references or reread some of my older OPs and I don't want to hunt for the relevant points from among the heap of rubbish.

[Atla]

The Notes will also come in handy for future generations who will come back to research this forum, after VA's status as the world-leading expert on philosophy and the saviour of humanity, has been established.

[accelafine]

[Self-Lightening]

Wokeism in this case is taken as:

Wokeism is weaponized personal grievances masquerading as a genuine social concern. It’s defined by its fraudulent nature, as being distinct from legitimate social grievances. Wokeism only knows outrage — it knows not empathy for victims.
Link:

I think "woke(ism)" is an unfortunate choice of words, though, as it tends to be associated with the far Left, but applies equally to the far Right, if not more so.

In a similar sense, analytic philosophy used "wokeism" to shut and 'kill' off rivals who are not align with their beliefs and ideology.

Interesting.

The main grounding of Analytic Philosophy is that of Philosophical-Realism [PR], i.e. external reality is absolutely mind-independent or human-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Big difference between mind-independent and human-independent, though. If by "humans" you mean strictly members of the species homo (sapiens (sapiens)), then of course (external) reality is absolutely human-independent. Yet, equally naturally, (external) reality is not (absolutely) mind-independent. And "humans" does not have to mean "members of the species homo (sapiens (sapiens)):

'I contend that man only becomes natural when all of nature becomes human for him, in his hypothesis, his postulation,—his willing to power. Of course, I don't mean literally or fully human. Still, it may be helpful to pretend it means just that for a bit. Let's compare my contention with Buddhism. In Buddhism, to be fully human, fully vernatürlicht ["naturalized"] as a human, means to fully realize one's Buddha-nature—in other words, to be fully enlightened. But this Buddha-nature is something the human being has in common with all beings: it is not just the deepest, but also the highest reality of all beings.'
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=419493#p419493

To be sure, though, even though I subscribe to Integrated Information Theory (IIT), I'll admit "all beings" may be taking it too far. But we can quite easily think of, e.g., dolphins, aliens, and sentient AI as being human in a broader sense. And as I said, there's a big difference between human-independent and mind-independent.

Here is a research paper on how analytic philosophy used organization control [since early 1900s to 1969 - "up to the present"] to enable their pariah ideology to dominate the current philosophy atmosphere.

Analytic Philosophy, 1925-1969: Emergence, Management and Nature.
By Joel Katzav & Vaesen

1. Introduction
The present paper argues that Analytic Philosophy, at least during the period 1925-1969, was a form of Critical philosophy that used institutional control in order to promote itself and marginalise rivals.
This institutional control, it will further be argued, partly explains the emergence and eventual dominance of Analytic Philosophy in Great Britain and the United States of America.
More specifically, already documented takeovers of the journals Mind and The Philosophical Review (PR) by Analytic Philosophers (Katzav and Vaesen 2017a and 2017b) are here shown to be part of a pattern.
The pattern is of philosophers with a shared commitment to a form of Critical philosophy
either (a) founding journals that are dedicated to promoting that form of Critical philosophy
or (b) using journals with a history of openness to diverse philosophical approaches to promote that form of Critical philosophy at the expense of rivals.
It is this use of journals which, in turn, plays a role in explaining the emergence and dominance of Analytic Philosophy.
Link

Very interesting!

[accelafine]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wokeism in this case is taken as:

Wokeism is weaponized personal grievances masquerading as a genuine social concern. It’s defined by its fraudulent nature, as being distinct from legitimate social grievances. Wokeism only knows outrage — it knows not empathy for victims.
Link:

I think "woke(ism)" is an unfortunate choice of words, though, as it tends to be associated with the far Left, but applies equally to the far Right, if not more so.

In a similar sense, analytic philosophy used "wokeism" to shut and 'kill' off rivals who are not align with their beliefs and ideology.

Interesting.

The similarities are the dogmatic thinking of 'my way or the highway' and that they believed they are more enlightened than others.

The main grounding of Analytic Philosophy is that of Philosophical-Realism [PR], i.e. external reality is absolutely mind-independent or human-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Big difference between mind-independent and human-independent, though. If by "humans" you mean strictly members of the species homo (sapiens (sapiens)), then of course (external) reality is absolutely human-independent. Yet, equally naturally, (external) reality is not (absolutely) mind-independent.

Normally I use 'absolutely mind-independent' as in philosophical realism. 'Mind' in this case refer only to human mind.
Here I included 'human independent' because some poster like PH [my regular interlocutor] do not believe a 'mind' exists at all.

Since you mentioned Buddhism, with Pratītyasamutpāda -dependent origination, there is no absolute mind-independence.
However, there is relative mind-independence, i.e. the apple, moon, etc. out there exist independent of the human mind at least within common and conventional sense. Note the Two Truths Doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

And "humans" does not have to mean "members of the species homo (sapiens (sapiens)):

My basis is grounded on biology re what is human.

I contend that man only becomes natural when all of nature becomes human for him, in his hypothesis, his postulation,—his willing to power. Of course, I don't mean literally or fully human. Still, it may be helpful to pretend it means just that for a bit. Let's compare my contention with Buddhism. In Buddhism, to be fully human, fully vernatürlicht ["naturalized"] as a human, means to fully realize one's Buddha-nature—in other words, to be fully enlightened. But this Buddha-nature is something the human being has in common with all beings: it is not just the deepest, but also the highest reality of all beings.'
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=419493#p419493

Instead of will-to-power I subscribe to will-to-live [survive optimally] naturally in alignment with human nature, i.e. till the inevitable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some points from the article:

Similarly, according to Critical philosophy, philosophy should avoid going beyond established belief.
In addition, however, the end of the Second World War saw a period during which publishing became important to getting and keeping an academic position (Nee and Ingram 1998).
And the sectarian attitude of relevant Analytic philosophers would then help to explain why, once they had sufficient control, they let nobody else in.

Third, in addition to sectarianism at philosophy journals, sectarianism in teaching at PhD-awarding philosophy departments and in hiring philosophers (independently of their records of publication) is likely to have substantially affected the trajectory of philosophy in Britain and America.

Further, the conjunction of the high institutional confidence in Critical philosophy with the already noted apparent absence of sufficiently strong arguments against Speculative philosophy suggests that Analytic Philosophy can perhaps be further characterised as a form of dogmatism, where dogmatism is here understood to involve a degree of commitment to a position that goes beyond what is justified by evidence or argumentation.

Thus, the fundamental shift towards Critical philosophy that came with Analytic Philosophy was substantially externally driven. Indeed, it was, on the face of things, not adequately justified.