Status
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Description
On 25 October 1946, in a crowded room in Cambridge, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper came face to face for the first and only time. The encounter lasted only ten minutes, and did not go well. Almost immediately, rumours started to spread around the world that the two philosophers had come to blows, armed with red-hot pokers. But what really happened? Wittgenstein's Poker engagingly winds together philosophy, history and biography into a compelling piece of detective work. It ranges from the place of assimilated Jews in fin-de-siècle Vienna, to what happens to memory under stress, to a vivid portrait of Cambridge and its eccentric set of philosophy dons, including Bertrand Russell (who acted as umpire during the altercation). At the centre of the story stand the philosophers themselves, proud, irascible, larger than life, and spoiling for a fight. 'Those ten minutes shook the world of Western philosophy literally to its foundations . . . Edmonds and Eidinow have a very good story to tell, and they tell it wonderfully well.' Irish Times 'A meaty, exceedingly well-researched and engaging book. In its dramatic readability Wittgenstein's Poker brings to mind Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman; in the depth and breadth of its scholarship it evokes Carl Schorske's Fin-de-si è cle Vienna . . . a marvel of passionate journalism.' San Francisco Chronicle… (more)
User reviews
Wittgenstein and many of the philosophy faculty, graduate students and other
On this particular occasion, at one of their meetings on a day in late October of 1946, Karl Popper was in the area giving a lecture and was invited to attend the meeting of the moral philosophy club. Wittgenstein's brief argument with Popper, which took place at that small classroom at King's College in the presence of Bertrand Russell and a handful of graduate philosophy students has become the stuff of legend.
Wittgenstein and Popper reportedly debated back and forth about their differing perspectives on the deep philosophical and linguistic argument at hand- including by some accounts Wittgenstein accentuating his point with a poker from the fireplace. Following this brief exchange, Wittgenstein reportedly made his point, threw down the poker and left the room. Reports differ as to who won the argument, but it has become part of both of their enduring philosophical legacies.
This thoughtful book sets the scene for this interesting exchange. The authors also provide a fascinating background into the early life and upbringing of both Wittgenstein and Popper- Wittgenstein as the son of a wealthy European oil tycoon who endured much tragedy in his younger life and eschewed wealth and privilege in his adult life; Popper coming from a more austere working class background.
A concise window into Wittgenstein's (and to some degree Popper and Russell's) works is also provided. Wittgenstein had published his brilliant yet somewhat obtuse "Tractatus Logico Philosophicus" some years earlier. Popper had written "The Open Society and Its Enemies," which was a scathing critique of authoritarianism and further developed the "open society" concept put forth by Bergson.
This book is a fascinating read, and provides enough concise background that one does not have to be a philosophy scholar to enjoy and benefit greatly from reading it. I highly recommend it!
As far as literary relatives go, pre-anschluss Vienna is described extensively and exquisitely in Clive James' Cultural Amnesia, itself a series of essays and recollections on important figures of the last century. Errol Morris, in his essays for the NY Times, also will circle topics in the same sort of fashion—albeit with more gumshoe detective work and exploration into the ideological issues underlying the ambiguity. Both authors, James and Morris, are highly recommended above this book. But don't let that scare you off; it's a super-fast, surprisingly short read.
EDIT: Upped it to four stars retrospectively because I was leafing through the book and enjoying the hilarious Wittgenstein epigraphs. Really, the reason I (and most others) are so entranced with him is because he is hilarious to read about despite being an asshole in real life. He just said the funniest shit!
My largest criticism is the bias toward Wittgenstein over Popper. I do
If people do not know who Popper or Wittgenstein are, they should pick up this book. I found the reading enjoyable and it perked my interest in Tractatus logico-philosophicus. We'll see if I actually read it.
Ostensibly about a 10 minute argument between philosophers Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein at Cambridge in 1946, but much wider in scope than that. The book delves extensively into the background of each. Both being Viennese Jews we get many pages on the treatment of Jews before and
The book does a good job in setting the scene for the argument by detailing the differences between the two. Along the way we get a between the wars European history lesson, a skim through the main areas of western philosophy at the time, a flavour of life at Cambridge University and a glimpse into the minds of a couple of geniuses.
Part of why the encounter is worthwhile knowing lies in the cultural conflict around the relevance of language as the root or merely contributing factor in philosophical questions, and how this surfaces in the event. Wittgenstein seems to assert language is at the root of philosophy, while Popper claims rather language is but a mediating variable. Another reason: the encounter, as discussed here, provides ample grounds for better understanding Wittgenstein's shift (Wittgenstein I and Wittgenstein II), as well as for understanding Popper as more than a "simple" adherent of the Viennese Circle (which he in fact wasn't).
Key elements of the encounter are ambiguous due to conflicting recollection from those attending. Was LW angry when he left? Did KP voice the jest about not threatening visiting lecturers with a poker before or after LW left the room? Was the poker brandished threateningly or used as a prop, and was it hot from the fire or cool?
Edmonds and Eidinow spend more time than needed trying to imagine exactly what happened in the meeting in
Neither man is painted very sympathetic as a person, but both come across as the important thinkers that they were.
The value of this book is in how it presents the ideas of Wittgenstein and of Popper not in isolation but in relation to each other, and to philosophical thought of their time.