What do you think?
Rate this book
Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers
On October 25, 1946, in a crowded room in Cambridge, England, the great twentieth-century philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper came face to face for the first and only time. The meeting -- which lasted ten minutes -- did not go well. Their loud and aggressive confrontation became the stuff of instant legend, but precisely what happened during that brief confrontation remained for decades the subject of intense disagreement.
An engaging mix of philosophy, history, biography, and literary detection, Wittgenstein's Poker explores, through the Popper/Wittgenstein confrontation, the history of philosophy in the twentieth century. It evokes the tumult of fin-de-siécle Vienna, Wittgentein's and Popper's birthplace; the tragedy of the Nazi takeover of Austria; and postwar Cambridge University, with its eccentric set of philosophy dons, including Bertrand Russell. At the center of the story stand the two giants of philosophy themselves -- proud, irascible, larger than life -- and spoiling for a fight.
An engaging mix of philosophy, history, biography, and literary detection, Wittgenstein's Poker explores, through the Popper/Wittgenstein confrontation, the history of philosophy in the twentieth century. It evokes the tumult of fin-de-siécle Vienna, Wittgentein's and Popper's birthplace; the tragedy of the Nazi takeover of Austria; and postwar Cambridge University, with its eccentric set of philosophy dons, including Bertrand Russell. At the center of the story stand the two giants of philosophy themselves -- proud, irascible, larger than life -- and spoiling for a fight.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
113 people are currently reading
4023 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 320 reviews
April 3, 2007
Karl Popper's a sad case. One of the greatest geniuses of the last century, he was an analytical philosopher par excellence at the exact moment when everyone started to ignore analytical philosophy. But at least he got to survive to see himself become extinct.
Wittgenstein and Popper were from opposite sides of the tracks in Vienna, both had taught school for a little while, both Jews who escaped the Anschluss (Wittgenstein with a bit more dignity than Popper), but beyond some superficial biographical similarities they couldn't have been more different. Wittgenstein was cerebral, a charismatic child prodigy with a religious bent; Popper was practical, a cranky tyrant, a social animal. Popper had readers; Wittgenstein had followers (many of whom undoubtedly had no idea what he was talking about.) Wittgenstein said (unhelpfully) of morality that whereof we cannot speak, thereover we must pass in silence; Popper ruefully exclaimed that belief in reality is the ultimate moral imperative.
Naturally, someone decided to stage a showdown, and gave it a name: "Are There Philosophical Problems?" This book tells the story of what may or may not have happened, who may have threatened the other with a poker and with what purpose in mind, but it's also a panoramic survey of prewar Viennese philosophy, as fertile a bunch of intellects as have ever found themselves in one place. The philosophy is a little watered down, but not so much as to be meaningless. This book's worth reading if you're curious about either Wittgenstein or Popper, though I think Popper comes off a little poorly... but unfortunately, I wasn't there.
Wittgenstein and Popper were from opposite sides of the tracks in Vienna, both had taught school for a little while, both Jews who escaped the Anschluss (Wittgenstein with a bit more dignity than Popper), but beyond some superficial biographical similarities they couldn't have been more different. Wittgenstein was cerebral, a charismatic child prodigy with a religious bent; Popper was practical, a cranky tyrant, a social animal. Popper had readers; Wittgenstein had followers (many of whom undoubtedly had no idea what he was talking about.) Wittgenstein said (unhelpfully) of morality that whereof we cannot speak, thereover we must pass in silence; Popper ruefully exclaimed that belief in reality is the ultimate moral imperative.
Naturally, someone decided to stage a showdown, and gave it a name: "Are There Philosophical Problems?" This book tells the story of what may or may not have happened, who may have threatened the other with a poker and with what purpose in mind, but it's also a panoramic survey of prewar Viennese philosophy, as fertile a bunch of intellects as have ever found themselves in one place. The philosophy is a little watered down, but not so much as to be meaningless. This book's worth reading if you're curious about either Wittgenstein or Popper, though I think Popper comes off a little poorly... but unfortunately, I wasn't there.
April 2, 2018
Ludwig Wittgenstein is regarded as one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century. His big idea was that a philosopher's job is to clarify the use of language to help us think more clearly. Early in his philosophical career, he believed that clarification could be achieved by making language more logical. He suggested ways to accomplish this.
Later, he changed his mind. He abandoned the notion that language could be made more logical. He concluded instead that natural language could not be improved upon. A philosophers' job, therefore, is to accept natural language for what it is and to show others how to avoid using language to attempt things beyond what language can do.
[Permit me to insert a parenthetical here. This last point about the limits of natural language has real world consequences. Not long ago, a very smart judge asked me a hypothetical question. In her question, business people were hypothesized to act in a way that business people in the real world do not act. Her inquiry was whether this conduct in the hypothetical world would constitute "an offer". I told her that the question is unanswerable. I could not answer because no one knows what "offer" would mean in a world where people acted in the way that she described. We have no experience with such a world and our natural language meaning of "offer" likely would not fit in the world that she hypothesized. I don't think I made my point as well as I might have because the concept I was trying to communicate is a departure from the way we commonly, but wrongly, assume that language works. That inaccurate assumption is part of what Wittgenstein was trying to fix.]
These big ideas of Wittgenstein, in different ways, were good ideas. But were hardly as interesting as the problems that interested Plato, Descartes or the great thinkers before the 20th century.
Karl Popper was a philosopher of monumental importance too. His big contributions included his refutation of the Logical Positivists' verification theory. (A proposition has meaning only if it makes a statement that is capable of verification. Statements that are not verifiable have no meaning.) Popper offered instead his falsification theory. (A proposition that is not capable of being falsified is not a statement of scientific discourse.) Falsification eliminated certain flaws in the verification theory. Popper also was an eloquent critic of the scourges of the 20th century: fascism, bolshevism and authoritarianism.
Wittgenstein and Popper met only once. When they did, they had a violent argument. WITTGENSTEIN'S POKER describes the background to that argument and tries to resolve the different accounts of what happened on that momentous occasion. The authors seem to conclude that, yes, Wittgenstein did threaten Popper with a poker. And no, Popper's claim to have made a famous wisecrack to Wittgenstein is not true. Popper likely made the crack, but only after Wittgenstein had left the room, which is not quite the heroic thing that Popper made it out to be.
This book is a lot of fun. It might have been a little shorter. I did not need to know quite so much about the Hapsburg Vienna, where both Wittgenstein and Popper grew up. But that is a small complaint.
One remarkable thing, however, is that in 2001, the authors could write the following about Popper:
“But in Britain and America, Popper is slowly being dropped from university syllabuses; his name is fading, if not yet forgotten. This, admittedly, is the price of success rather than the price of failure. Many of the ideas which in 1946 seemed so radical and were so important have become received wisdom. The attacks on authoritarianism, dogma and historical inevitability, the stress on tolerance, transparency and debate, the embracing of trial-and-error, the distrust of certainty and the espousal of humility—these today are beyond challenge and so beyond debate. If a resurgence of communism, fascism, aggressive nationalism or religious fundamentalism once again threatened the international order based on the open society, then Popper’s works would have to be reopened and their arguments relearned.”
I fear that resurgence has come. Let's dust off our old copies of Popper's THE OPEN SOCIETY and relearn his arguments. They no longer seem to be "received wisdom". And that is a pity.
Later, he changed his mind. He abandoned the notion that language could be made more logical. He concluded instead that natural language could not be improved upon. A philosophers' job, therefore, is to accept natural language for what it is and to show others how to avoid using language to attempt things beyond what language can do.
[Permit me to insert a parenthetical here. This last point about the limits of natural language has real world consequences. Not long ago, a very smart judge asked me a hypothetical question. In her question, business people were hypothesized to act in a way that business people in the real world do not act. Her inquiry was whether this conduct in the hypothetical world would constitute "an offer". I told her that the question is unanswerable. I could not answer because no one knows what "offer" would mean in a world where people acted in the way that she described. We have no experience with such a world and our natural language meaning of "offer" likely would not fit in the world that she hypothesized. I don't think I made my point as well as I might have because the concept I was trying to communicate is a departure from the way we commonly, but wrongly, assume that language works. That inaccurate assumption is part of what Wittgenstein was trying to fix.]
These big ideas of Wittgenstein, in different ways, were good ideas. But were hardly as interesting as the problems that interested Plato, Descartes or the great thinkers before the 20th century.
Karl Popper was a philosopher of monumental importance too. His big contributions included his refutation of the Logical Positivists' verification theory. (A proposition has meaning only if it makes a statement that is capable of verification. Statements that are not verifiable have no meaning.) Popper offered instead his falsification theory. (A proposition that is not capable of being falsified is not a statement of scientific discourse.) Falsification eliminated certain flaws in the verification theory. Popper also was an eloquent critic of the scourges of the 20th century: fascism, bolshevism and authoritarianism.
Wittgenstein and Popper met only once. When they did, they had a violent argument. WITTGENSTEIN'S POKER describes the background to that argument and tries to resolve the different accounts of what happened on that momentous occasion. The authors seem to conclude that, yes, Wittgenstein did threaten Popper with a poker. And no, Popper's claim to have made a famous wisecrack to Wittgenstein is not true. Popper likely made the crack, but only after Wittgenstein had left the room, which is not quite the heroic thing that Popper made it out to be.
This book is a lot of fun. It might have been a little shorter. I did not need to know quite so much about the Hapsburg Vienna, where both Wittgenstein and Popper grew up. But that is a small complaint.
One remarkable thing, however, is that in 2001, the authors could write the following about Popper:
“But in Britain and America, Popper is slowly being dropped from university syllabuses; his name is fading, if not yet forgotten. This, admittedly, is the price of success rather than the price of failure. Many of the ideas which in 1946 seemed so radical and were so important have become received wisdom. The attacks on authoritarianism, dogma and historical inevitability, the stress on tolerance, transparency and debate, the embracing of trial-and-error, the distrust of certainty and the espousal of humility—these today are beyond challenge and so beyond debate. If a resurgence of communism, fascism, aggressive nationalism or religious fundamentalism once again threatened the international order based on the open society, then Popper’s works would have to be reopened and their arguments relearned.”
I fear that resurgence has come. Let's dust off our old copies of Popper's THE OPEN SOCIETY and relearn his arguments. They no longer seem to be "received wisdom". And that is a pity.
May 10, 2017
I have been meaning to read this for a very long time – I’ve always been interested in both Wittgenstein and Popper, although never at the same time. Which pretty well explains much of the point of this book, I think. And then I’ve recently seen Amadeus again and so I’ve a feeling some of the themes from having that play fresh in my mind have had a part in my reading of this too.
Let’s start with the blindingly obvious – neither of these guys are the sort of people I would choose to be stuck beside on a plane. Although what is interesting here is that the discomfort I would feel beside either of them would be different in each case. I’m not going to claim to be an expert on either’s work. Positivism has always seemed simpleminded to me – so Popper running around saying, ‘it’s falsification, guys, can you falsify it?’ pretty well sums up my problem with him. And to think that all problems in philosophy are merely word games seems to have the stick by the end you shouldn’t be grasping by in the first place. That is, like Marx and Bourdieu, I think a lot of philosophical problems are answered more in practice than by abstract thought.
But it isn’t so much philosophical objections that would make me choose the window seat and spend the flight watching clouds – it is that these guys are egocentric arseholes. One with endless followers (acolytes) aping him (god, can you imagine anything worse?) and the other the eternal outsider (a role that is just as self-centred, when you think about it for even a second) determined everyone will see he was right in the end – no, look, I’ll take the train, thanks.
This book is less a book of the ten-minute confrontation, somehow involving a low-burnt fire (a stranger?) and an overly aggressive poker, than it is a history of three philosophers strutting and fretting upon a stage that I’m not sure even exists any longer. The third philosopher being Russell who was the problematic (maybe bastard) father to the two Austrians.
I think my problem is the aggression that is the underlying theme of this book – the bullshit masculinity that probably explains why so few women end up in philosophy as any other reason I can think of. What is clear, and what isn’t even contested (not even by Popper himself), is that Popper went to the meeting with the express aim of total victory over his arch-nemesis, Wittgenstein. Unfortunately for him, it seems Wittgenstein had hardly thought of him at all prior to the meeting, probably didn’t leave the meeting due to any of Popper’s arguments (which I suspect were put in ways Wittgenstein was least likely to be able to hear) and other than a few weeks later Wittgenstein ‘setting the record straight’ probably didn’t really think of Popper all that much ever again. Something that even on a good day Popper wouldn’t be able to say in return.
If you want to be Mozart, you have to be lost in your own genius, not running around like Salieri constantly obsessed with someone else’s genius and the desire to destroy that genius. I guess Popper will always be associated with Wittgenstein in ways Wittgenstein simply won’t be with Popper.
This book never goes maddeningly over your head – despite needing to discuss some complex and intricate philosophical problems. These are invariably presented in ways a lay audience have no problem at all in understanding. There are Poppists and Witt-wits that will object endlessly to oversimplifications here – but that is unavoidable. The ability to make clear to a lay audience such complex ideas is a real skill and it is even more impressive because the differences between philosophers are too often obvious to them (and worth going to war over) and totally obscure to everyone else. We are left in no doubt at all that the differences between these guys are consequential and we see what these differences are.
My suggestion would be to not take sides when reading this book. Not just because both philosophers are wrong – but also because they are possibly both right too.
Let’s start with the blindingly obvious – neither of these guys are the sort of people I would choose to be stuck beside on a plane. Although what is interesting here is that the discomfort I would feel beside either of them would be different in each case. I’m not going to claim to be an expert on either’s work. Positivism has always seemed simpleminded to me – so Popper running around saying, ‘it’s falsification, guys, can you falsify it?’ pretty well sums up my problem with him. And to think that all problems in philosophy are merely word games seems to have the stick by the end you shouldn’t be grasping by in the first place. That is, like Marx and Bourdieu, I think a lot of philosophical problems are answered more in practice than by abstract thought.
But it isn’t so much philosophical objections that would make me choose the window seat and spend the flight watching clouds – it is that these guys are egocentric arseholes. One with endless followers (acolytes) aping him (god, can you imagine anything worse?) and the other the eternal outsider (a role that is just as self-centred, when you think about it for even a second) determined everyone will see he was right in the end – no, look, I’ll take the train, thanks.
This book is less a book of the ten-minute confrontation, somehow involving a low-burnt fire (a stranger?) and an overly aggressive poker, than it is a history of three philosophers strutting and fretting upon a stage that I’m not sure even exists any longer. The third philosopher being Russell who was the problematic (maybe bastard) father to the two Austrians.
I think my problem is the aggression that is the underlying theme of this book – the bullshit masculinity that probably explains why so few women end up in philosophy as any other reason I can think of. What is clear, and what isn’t even contested (not even by Popper himself), is that Popper went to the meeting with the express aim of total victory over his arch-nemesis, Wittgenstein. Unfortunately for him, it seems Wittgenstein had hardly thought of him at all prior to the meeting, probably didn’t leave the meeting due to any of Popper’s arguments (which I suspect were put in ways Wittgenstein was least likely to be able to hear) and other than a few weeks later Wittgenstein ‘setting the record straight’ probably didn’t really think of Popper all that much ever again. Something that even on a good day Popper wouldn’t be able to say in return.
If you want to be Mozart, you have to be lost in your own genius, not running around like Salieri constantly obsessed with someone else’s genius and the desire to destroy that genius. I guess Popper will always be associated with Wittgenstein in ways Wittgenstein simply won’t be with Popper.
This book never goes maddeningly over your head – despite needing to discuss some complex and intricate philosophical problems. These are invariably presented in ways a lay audience have no problem at all in understanding. There are Poppists and Witt-wits that will object endlessly to oversimplifications here – but that is unavoidable. The ability to make clear to a lay audience such complex ideas is a real skill and it is even more impressive because the differences between philosophers are too often obvious to them (and worth going to war over) and totally obscure to everyone else. We are left in no doubt at all that the differences between these guys are consequential and we see what these differences are.
My suggestion would be to not take sides when reading this book. Not just because both philosophers are wrong – but also because they are possibly both right too.
May 30, 2021
"Vamos acabar com esse palavrório transcendental quando a coisa toda está clara como um soco no queixo" | Ludwig Wittgenstein
Esta é a história de um confronto entre dois grandes titãs do pensamento do século passado: Ludwig Wittgenstein e Karl Popper. Estes dois académicos de peso (cujo legado ainda nos enriquece tanto) debateram-se apaixonadamente numa fria noite de outono. Entre eles, estava uma outra figura (igualmente lendária): Bertrand Russell. A dada altura, Wittgenstein ergue um atiçador; uns afirmam que não tinha intenções de ameaçar Popper, outros entendem que Wittgenstein padecia de uma impulsividade agressiva crónica.
Mas esta cena foi apenas o mote para o autor - David Edmonds - traçar o perfil destes dois mestres do século XX. De parte a parte existem ressentimentos, equívocos. O filho de um advogado influente (Popper) e o milionário ermita (Wittgenstein) têm percursos de vida muito diferentes, embora ambos tenham sido filhos de uma Áustria em declínio.
Uma leitura muito interessante, muito rica, divertida e que até serve de introdução à obra destes dois filósofos.
Ah, quanto ao atiçador, esse foi destruído, uma vez que foi objecto de curiosidade de académicos e jornalistas durante muito tempo. Serve agora de metáfora para as velhas (e saudáveis) lutas que se costumavam travar por causa das Ideias.
Esta é a história de um confronto entre dois grandes titãs do pensamento do século passado: Ludwig Wittgenstein e Karl Popper. Estes dois académicos de peso (cujo legado ainda nos enriquece tanto) debateram-se apaixonadamente numa fria noite de outono. Entre eles, estava uma outra figura (igualmente lendária): Bertrand Russell. A dada altura, Wittgenstein ergue um atiçador; uns afirmam que não tinha intenções de ameaçar Popper, outros entendem que Wittgenstein padecia de uma impulsividade agressiva crónica.
Mas esta cena foi apenas o mote para o autor - David Edmonds - traçar o perfil destes dois mestres do século XX. De parte a parte existem ressentimentos, equívocos. O filho de um advogado influente (Popper) e o milionário ermita (Wittgenstein) têm percursos de vida muito diferentes, embora ambos tenham sido filhos de uma Áustria em declínio.
Uma leitura muito interessante, muito rica, divertida e que até serve de introdução à obra destes dois filósofos.
Ah, quanto ao atiçador, esse foi destruído, uma vez que foi objecto de curiosidade de académicos e jornalistas durante muito tempo. Serve agora de metáfora para as velhas (e saudáveis) lutas que se costumavam travar por causa das Ideias.
July 4, 2016
One of my favorite reads this year, it's delightful.
Apparently it's a legendary anecdote: Karl Popper triumphantly debunking the whole foundation of Wittgenstein's philosophy so brutally that the latter, in impotent rage, threatened him with an iron poker and stormed out.
The main reason it's legendary is because Popper himself wouldn't let it die. He was certain he single-handedly overthrew logical positivism and its conviction that there are no real philosophical problems, merely linguistic riddles.
But that anecdote, and investigating various accounts of witnesses to nail down the true version of events - is just this book's excuse to portray the world of Western philosophy in the first half of 20th century.
It's full of hilarious gossip about great and less than great intellectuals of the time. It paints a vivid picture of Vienna in the years of Hitler's rise to power. It shows the escalating anti-Semitism in this city once famous for its liberalism and the substantial population of assimilated Jews. It talks about Popper's complicated relationship with his own Jewishness and the Jewish diaspora. As well as Wittgenstein's legendary disdain for social problems, and most things related to mere mortals.
While it definitely picks sides in the conflict, the book does a great job of giving quite in-depth and sympathetic biographical portrait of both Popper and Wittgenstein, who were practically neighbors, but lived in completely different worlds and never met in Vienna despite shared academic interests.
Popper was a self-made man who had to drop out of school when his family lost their money in the post-WWI inflation. Wittgenstein's family was one of the very richest in Vienna, it went down in history as one of the few rich enough to bribe their way out of being sent to a death camp. Popper made his name in history as the prominent thinker of anti-totalitarianism, proponent of the idea of open society. Wittgenstein was a genius who spent his life arguing about linguistic riddles, against the utility of philosophy and for the pointlessness of ethical judgement.
All in all, it's a riveting and educational read and I wish it upon anyone who wants to learn a bit about one of the most interesting and influential thinkers of the 20th century, and to get acquainted with his philosophy without having to study it.
Apparently it's a legendary anecdote: Karl Popper triumphantly debunking the whole foundation of Wittgenstein's philosophy so brutally that the latter, in impotent rage, threatened him with an iron poker and stormed out.
The main reason it's legendary is because Popper himself wouldn't let it die. He was certain he single-handedly overthrew logical positivism and its conviction that there are no real philosophical problems, merely linguistic riddles.
But that anecdote, and investigating various accounts of witnesses to nail down the true version of events - is just this book's excuse to portray the world of Western philosophy in the first half of 20th century.
It's full of hilarious gossip about great and less than great intellectuals of the time. It paints a vivid picture of Vienna in the years of Hitler's rise to power. It shows the escalating anti-Semitism in this city once famous for its liberalism and the substantial population of assimilated Jews. It talks about Popper's complicated relationship with his own Jewishness and the Jewish diaspora. As well as Wittgenstein's legendary disdain for social problems, and most things related to mere mortals.
While it definitely picks sides in the conflict, the book does a great job of giving quite in-depth and sympathetic biographical portrait of both Popper and Wittgenstein, who were practically neighbors, but lived in completely different worlds and never met in Vienna despite shared academic interests.
Popper was a self-made man who had to drop out of school when his family lost their money in the post-WWI inflation. Wittgenstein's family was one of the very richest in Vienna, it went down in history as one of the few rich enough to bribe their way out of being sent to a death camp. Popper made his name in history as the prominent thinker of anti-totalitarianism, proponent of the idea of open society. Wittgenstein was a genius who spent his life arguing about linguistic riddles, against the utility of philosophy and for the pointlessness of ethical judgement.
All in all, it's a riveting and educational read and I wish it upon anyone who wants to learn a bit about one of the most interesting and influential thinkers of the 20th century, and to get acquainted with his philosophy without having to study it.
Read
November 30, 2025The sole encounter between the Austrian philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper lasted only about ten minutes, but it was long enough for it to become legendary. Dozens of people witnessed the exchange, resulting in several variations of how it supposedly unfolded. But the general impression was that the faceoff devolved almost immediately into a heated argument, during which an infuriated Wittgenstein seized a poker from a nearby fireplace and threatened Popper with bodily harm. David Edmonds offers a thorough investigation of the famous confrontation here, then uses it as a springboard for a deeper dive into intellectual history, psychology, linguistics, epistemology, and philosophy of science. He displays an admirable gift for making difficult subjects accessible and entertaining to a wide audience. His account brings some of the deepest minds of the twentieth century down to the common human level, reminding us that they, no less than we, have their limitations and foibles. This didn't diminish my respect for these men's achievements; rather, it only made them more relatable and endearing. I would recommend Wittgenstein's Poker to any intelligent layman interested in learning more about philosophy. It's a splendid introduction to the subject.
January 24, 2009
This book was incredibly vapid.
The book is a fluffy soap opera that doesn't attempt to seriously describe either man's thoughts, and what it did describe was subpar to any "Philosophers for Beginners" comic books. The authors' characterization of Wittgenstein vacillated between gross simplification to flat out wrong, yet not only did the authors mis-characterize Wittgenstein's work, but they failed to show how either Wittgenstein or Popper's philosophy changed philosophy (and the world) as we know it. The argument the book revolves around is an unimportant non-event and isn't enough to rest an entire book on.
The larger cultural and historical background was great, but the whole book slid into that recent category of "thin-slice history," which often degenerates into meaningless trivia. This book is the perfect example of thin-history done wrong. The book takes on a paltry gossip-magazine event, and attempts to tell us about the larger time and space that surrounds the event. In this case, we find two "Great Men" acting like assholes, but learn next to nothing about what they actually wrote, what they actually accomplished, and why they made a great impact on their fields.
This book would be little changed if the authors substituted two contemporaneous and warring dilettantes/generals/actresses/peasants/clerks/whatever, instead of two historically important philosophers.
The book is a fluffy soap opera that doesn't attempt to seriously describe either man's thoughts, and what it did describe was subpar to any "Philosophers for Beginners" comic books. The authors' characterization of Wittgenstein vacillated between gross simplification to flat out wrong, yet not only did the authors mis-characterize Wittgenstein's work, but they failed to show how either Wittgenstein or Popper's philosophy changed philosophy (and the world) as we know it. The argument the book revolves around is an unimportant non-event and isn't enough to rest an entire book on.
The larger cultural and historical background was great, but the whole book slid into that recent category of "thin-slice history," which often degenerates into meaningless trivia. This book is the perfect example of thin-history done wrong. The book takes on a paltry gossip-magazine event, and attempts to tell us about the larger time and space that surrounds the event. In this case, we find two "Great Men" acting like assholes, but learn next to nothing about what they actually wrote, what they actually accomplished, and why they made a great impact on their fields.
This book would be little changed if the authors substituted two contemporaneous and warring dilettantes/generals/actresses/peasants/clerks/whatever, instead of two historically important philosophers.
December 27, 2008
Recently (re)discovering a keen interest in Wittgenstein and his work, I found myself once again lacking when I tried to confront the material head-on, as it were. I poured over the same books I'd studied in classes (now more than a decade ago) only to find myself asking the same questions. Am I really understanding any of this the way it was intended to be understood?
Then recommendations came from a family member on a more helpful approach to Wittgenstein - that is, approaching from the side. She recommended three books to me that would serve as sort of "side doors" that might make the material, especially those aspects that appeared contradictory, more accessible. "Wittgenstein's Poker" is one of the three books. The other two are Michael Nedo's "Ludwig Wittgenstein: There Where You Are Not" and Fergus Kerr's "Work on Oneself." (See these reviews separately.) None of these books stand alone as a good reference to Wittgenstein's work, they do, however, lend insight to several aspects of his life.
This particular book not only sheds light on one particularly controversial incident between two great philosophers - but more importantly delves into the road(s) and people that led them there. The background on the Vienna Circle, Vienna's coffeehouse culture, and their Jewish heritage (as assimilated Jews in Vienna) they both shared, are given great attention. How each man chose and later viewed their great professional battles (including the subject of the book) is also well treated. Students, disciples, detractors, and early mentors all play into the total story - so that by the time (late in the book) you actually get the account of the incident, it is almost anti-climactic.
Then recommendations came from a family member on a more helpful approach to Wittgenstein - that is, approaching from the side. She recommended three books to me that would serve as sort of "side doors" that might make the material, especially those aspects that appeared contradictory, more accessible. "Wittgenstein's Poker" is one of the three books. The other two are Michael Nedo's "Ludwig Wittgenstein: There Where You Are Not" and Fergus Kerr's "Work on Oneself." (See these reviews separately.) None of these books stand alone as a good reference to Wittgenstein's work, they do, however, lend insight to several aspects of his life.
This particular book not only sheds light on one particularly controversial incident between two great philosophers - but more importantly delves into the road(s) and people that led them there. The background on the Vienna Circle, Vienna's coffeehouse culture, and their Jewish heritage (as assimilated Jews in Vienna) they both shared, are given great attention. How each man chose and later viewed their great professional battles (including the subject of the book) is also well treated. Students, disciples, detractors, and early mentors all play into the total story - so that by the time (late in the book) you actually get the account of the incident, it is almost anti-climactic.
Read
May 28, 2016پوپر و ویتگنشتاین دو فیلسوف بزرگ قرن بیستم، تنها یک بار در یکی از انجمنهای دانشگاه کمبریج با هم ملاقات میکنند. این ماجرا، همان طور که از اسم کتاب پیداست، به جدل میکشد. نویسندهی کتاب حاضر تلاش کرده است علتهای این جدل را بررسی کند. در این بررسیها، گاه مسائل فلسفی بیان میشود و گاه مسائل تاریخی و اجتماعی و حتی روانی. کتاب حول یک موضوع واحد میچرخد اما برای بررسی موضوع، از هر دری سخنی میگوید... .
February 10, 2023
While it purports to be about an emphatic argument between Wittgenstein and Popper, the book actually uses that incident as a way into exploring the cultural background of both authors, especially the way they were both shaped by Vienna and the rise of the Nazis. There is some philosophy there, but it's treated very lightly and simply. I probably would have gotten more out of the book if it wasn't retreading so much of what I already sorta knew, but it remains a breezy & easy-to-read exploration of the issue. The one unfortunate part was near the end where having covered all the ground and context, the author tries to lamely circle back to the original encounter and reenact it novelistically; it feels both poorly-written and hollow, since most of the vigor at that point has gone to the comparatively more interesting backgrounds of our two antagonists.
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!
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!
December 26, 2023
والا من تا وقتی کتاب رو شروع کردم فک میکردم کتاب طنز و فکاهی قراره بخونم که خب اشتباه میکردم.
دو سه باری تلاش کردم تا الان که رسالهی ویتگنشتاین رو بخونم و با شکست مواجه شده. با خوندن این کتاب مطمئن شدم دیگه سراغ اون نمیرم فعلا 😅
و اما پوپر! پر مورد ایشون هم چیز زیادی نمیدونستم و نمیدونم هنوز هم. ولی خوندن این کتاب باعث شد برم یکی از کتاباش که الان اسمش یادم نیست رو بخرم.
خلاصه که به نظرم نظرم به نظر پوپر نزدیکتره تا ویتگنشتاین!
نقطهی منفی کتاب هم این بود که دیگه زیادی به جلسهی سیخ بخاری گیر داده بود. بخشهای دیگهی کتاب برای من بسیار جذابتر بود. بهخصوص مسائل مربوط به یهودیان و داستانهای دو خانواده در زمان هیتلر.
دو سه باری تلاش کردم تا الان که رسالهی ویتگنشتاین رو بخونم و با شکست مواجه شده. با خوندن این کتاب مطمئن شدم دیگه سراغ اون نمیرم فعلا 😅
و اما پوپر! پر مورد ایشون هم چیز زیادی نمیدونستم و نمیدونم هنوز هم. ولی خوندن این کتاب باعث شد برم یکی از کتاباش که الان اسمش یادم نیست رو بخرم.
خلاصه که به نظرم نظرم به نظر پوپر نزدیکتره تا ویتگنشتاین!
نقطهی منفی کتاب هم این بود که دیگه زیادی به جلسهی سیخ بخاری گیر داده بود. بخشهای دیگهی کتاب برای من بسیار جذابتر بود. بهخصوص مسائل مربوط به یهودیان و داستانهای دو خانواده در زمان هیتلر.
August 12, 2021
tremendously well-researched! i wish i could have been in the room when wittgenstein and popper locked horns. i would have been the classic woman fainting, or more probably the fish yelling "MY LEG" in the background
August 14, 2018
2.5 stars!
کتاب با آنکه از در و دیوارش تحسین و ستایش میبارد اصلا به مذاقم خوش نیامد. بررسی شرایط فرهنگی، اقتصادی، سیاسی و ... دو فیلسوف بزرگ و پیچ و تاب دادن جزئی ترین جزئیات زندگی این دو نفر آن هم با حالتی بسیار جانب دارانه به نفع یکی اصلا برایم جالب نبود. شاید هم چند سال دیگر نظرم تغییر کند و قدر کتاب را بیشتر بدانم.
کتاب با آنکه از در و دیوارش تحسین و ستایش میبارد اصلا به مذاقم خوش نیامد. بررسی شرایط فرهنگی، اقتصادی، سیاسی و ... دو فیلسوف بزرگ و پیچ و تاب دادن جزئی ترین جزئیات زندگی این دو نفر آن هم با حالتی بسیار جانب دارانه به نفع یکی اصلا برایم جالب نبود. شاید هم چند سال دیگر نظرم تغییر کند و قدر کتاب را بیشتر بدانم.
October 13, 2025
A shallow study of an insignificant event.
October 4, 2017
This is the story of the famous clash between Wittgenstein and Popper. It is a story and E & E tell it in a way that should appeal to non-philosophers and philosophers will at least not be annoyed by it. Basically it is the story of a ten-minute argument and to make a book out of it show some ingenuity. Popper was reading a paper in Cambridge. Wittgenstein did not like it (as he seemed to not have liked anybody but him doing the talking). And some time he was playing with a poker (Feuerhaken). And then he left smashing the door. And what has caused him to go? Popper in his autobiography says that forced by Wittgenstein to come up with an ethical rule he had said “Do not threaten a visiting lecturer with a poker.” Now, this sounds too good to be true. The kind of thing you later think of and wish to have said. And that is the argument. Did he say it, did he give the example only later when Wittgenstein had already left? Did he lie? If so, intentionally? Or are the Wittgensteinians who were present the bad guys who defend their master even though he was behaving like a spoilt child? It seems in the end we will not know for sure. One of the reasons why building a time machine might not be such a bad idea in the end. But then, it is not that interesting. But E & E take the incident as a pretext to tell something about both men and their philosophy and more importantly about their position in the world. Very nice.
April 15, 2022
'Wittgenstein's Poker' is partially biography and partially history with very limited philosophical content although what philosophy is present is clearly expressed and should not be difficult to follow. The book is about philosophy but not one of philosophy.
It hangs on an incident in 1946 when two exiled Viennese philosophers met in a bleak Cambridge. One (Wittgenstein) was said by some to have threatened the other (Popper) with a poker. From this incident, the authors weave a tale with great skill.
I would be tempted to say a tale of rivalry but there is scant evidence that Wittgenstein gave much thought to Popper and it takes two to tango under such circumstances. What we see instead is a clash of philosophical cultures and personalities and philosophy is ultimately personality.
Coldly considered, the incident, like so many incidents that excite people, was in itself probably trivial, an event that became a subsequent social and cultural point of contention between rival philosophical ways of thinking but which in itself should not concern the rest of us too much.
Nevertheless, the authors take this brief moment in history, bring together all the evidence that they can about what happened and why and then offer us an inconclusive detective story, one that only results in us only knowing that we do not know (in a nice nod to Socrates).
What we do know - at least we think we know - is what it was like to be in Cambridge in 1946, even in that very room, who our companions were in that room and why the two men who contested in that room behaved the way they seemed to behave.
If we want to make that important, then that is our or the authors' privilege but then the supply of meaning to such events is story-telling and story-telling is journalism or history, not science or philosophy. Still, this particular story is well told and educative in the telling.
Edmonds and Eidenow give us coherent pictures of Popper, Wittgenstein and, more incidentally, Bertrand Russell and other philosophers in both Cambridge and Vienna that feel all the more authentic for not giving us more than we need to know to understand what was at stake.
The Viennese origins of the two men, Wittgenstein the arrogant pseudo-saintly quasi-aristocrat equivalent of a modern billionaire and middle class ambitious Popper, add to them being two peas in a pod in their philosophical monomania whether centred on the primacy of puzzles or problems.
The authors embed them in their time and provide considerable insights into the 'Jewish problem' - exactly how Jewish were these two men when neither were Jewish by religion or ethnic orientation, only having that designation shunted onto them by others and history.
Having read this book, one might even argue that, as far as European elites were concerned, the national socialists created their own bete noire by defining a race gainst the wishes and beliefs of the people they defined. I think this is what we would call an own goal.
Perhaps this is what is most valuable about the book - not its addition to the history of philosophy as such but its contribution to an understanding of the malleability of culture and how fast change can come regardless of the wishes of the victims of change.
The philosophical spects of the book are interesting however. This is a go-to popular history of the interactions of the two centres of European philosophy (Cambridge and Vienna) in the early twentieth century that does not require you to be a philosopher yourself.
There is a rhythm to the process whereby one school influences another and then creates the conditions for criticism and development. Russell's contribution to linguistic philosophy influences logical positivism only to be challenged in opposite ways by Wittgenstein and Popper.
Although the inferior philosopher to Wittgenstein by common consent (inferior to Wittgenstein can still mean great), Russell is nevertheless positioned here as a thinker of considerable historical importance acting as catalyst for intellectual transformation in both major centres.
As for Popper, he was perhaps a monomaniac when it came to his philosophy and as he challenged the verification principle with his own counter principle of falsification but he seems, outside of philosophy, to be have been a decent if very introverted man.
Wittgenstein was a 'sacred monster' - a genius creating two influential philosophies in one life time - whose later life might be characterised as that of an unwitting cult leader whose philosophy might be said to have shattered its subject as Socrates had shattered the claims of the Sophists.
The scene was set for the confrontation (exaggerated in my view) in Cambridge on October 25th, 1946, where one philosopher (W.) dismissed with customary rudeness the idea of Popper's that philosophy could be useful in solving problems rather than mere puzzles of language about life.
There was (as the authors outline) a political dimension to all this, albeit not in any simple or obvious sense. Popper had made his name with his destruction of Plato in his 'The Open Society' where the 'problem' of totalitarianism was presented as a problem with a solution.
The problem with Wittgenstein (to Popper) was not that he defended Plato and the totalitarians implicitly drawn from them but that he was not interested in such problems at all - if they existed, philosophy had nothing to contribute to their solution.
Even now, I am not sure anyone really understands what precisely was going on inside the mind of Wittgenstein but then that was part of the point he was making. Philosophy is just something you do to make sense of the world or oneself in the world through dealing with puzzles they create.
For the anxious middle class Popper, an underlying 'problem' was how to make his way in the world and express what he saw as unarguable truths. For the psychologically tormented ex-billionaire, there was no 'problem' just lots of small puzzles to solve to make sense of the world.
The fate of their ideas tell us a lot of about this. Popper transformed liberal democracy and can be regarded as one of the fathers, alongside Von Hayek and others, of the dominant liberal ideology that has tried to exert hegemony of the world and is now being challenged by new social forces.
George Soros was inspired by Popper. Popperian philosophical perspectives on politics became so dominant as to become an unchallenged and unquestioned norm. Just spend five minutes going through the LSE public lecture programme to see the extent to which he is taken for granted.
As the authors point out in an arresting image, Popper's tiny office at the LSE has been converted into a lavatory and yet the metropolitan London elite and that of much of the rest of the Western (or at least 'Anglo-Saxon') world thinks along 'Popperian' lines about politics.
Wittgenstein, on the other hand, is not taken for granted. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest of Western philosophers,despite having none of the ideological or political influence of Popper, and certainly as a philosopher far greater than Popper himself.
This is interesting. Philosophy as a discipline is a job of work, as with the work-a-day linguistic philosophers and scholastics. and it can be the trigger for ideology (as with Marx and Popper) but it is primarily something that transforms our ways of seeing at a deeper more personal level.
We can go through all the great philosophers and see that, with exceptions (Augustine and Hegel spring to mind), short term socio-politics (a century is short term) tends to sweep forward without them or bastardised versions of their thought pervert their meaning (as with Nietzsche).
Philosophy can be just a technical job in the Academy (Nietzsche's contempt for this may be noted here) but the content of the technical work is laid down by radical re-thinking somewhere earlier along the line - as when Aristotelian ways of thinking were displaced by humanist models.
These changes transform minds and societies as they filter out and down to become new ways of thinking across whole cultures. Such changes are not to be confused with 'ideology' which is the ossification of thought in relation to power on terms that resist challenge (and so philosophy).
Popper (without in any way intending to do so) contributed to the creation of an ossified elite ideology whereas Wittgenstein's second philosophy (his first fed the technicians) insidiously threatens over time to flow through Western culture in order to transform it from within.
The problem is that everyone can understand Popper but few can understand Wittgenstein II (probably less than any can understand any other philosopher even those as obscure as Kant or Heidegger) so that the time of transformation may extend centuries longer.
Systems can be built out of Heidegger with determination. Even Nietzsche can be re-tooled into a life-style that is livable but Wittgenstein II requires one either to join a cult of saints (which is against all philosophy and was not his intention) or to really understand his thinking at core.
And that is why his contribution may take centuries to unfold but also why Wittgenstein remains in the highest ranks of the pantheon while Popper does not. Philosophers may criticise him but from a position of enormous respect perhaps because he is both a problem and a puzzle in himself.
As to the book, I can recommend it as solid popular history that helps our understanding of a period in Western human thought which helps define our culture today. It is readable and intelligent even if the meeting in Room H3 is a Mcguffin.
December 25, 2016
I really enjoyed this. And I mean - really really enjoyed it! All the details, all the turns and of course - the adventurous dive into the minds of brilliance and intelligence: Popper and Wittgenstein.
One thing I did not like was the continuous fixation with the looks of women, well almost all the writing regarding women in the book actually. I don't really see the use of it. This intriguing storyline does not need that extra spicing up, because it already has a handful. Sexualising women in that manner just don't cut it. However subtle, it still bugs me....
Believe me, this is as yummy as it gets in the world of modern philosophy with a poker and two stubborn gentlemen.
One thing I did not like was the continuous fixation with the looks of women, well almost all the writing regarding women in the book actually. I don't really see the use of it. This intriguing storyline does not need that extra spicing up, because it already has a handful. Sexualising women in that manner just don't cut it. However subtle, it still bugs me....
Believe me, this is as yummy as it gets in the world of modern philosophy with a poker and two stubborn gentlemen.
February 14, 2020
Read this around the time it came out, and I remember it as one of the highlights for that year. As a "lay person", I found it immensely fun and a great introduction to Popper and Wittgenstein, their work, the philosophical schools they represented and its impact on 20th century philosophy.
I finished it wanting to learn more about the work of Russell, Wittgenstein and Popper.
A random conversation with a stranger at a cafe reminded me of this book, and I now want to re-read (for the 3rd or 4th time).
I finished it wanting to learn more about the work of Russell, Wittgenstein and Popper.
A random conversation with a stranger at a cafe reminded me of this book, and I now want to re-read (for the 3rd or 4th time).
October 20, 2023
I really liked “Wittgenstein's Poker”. In a great way, it familiarizes you with both the biographies of the philosophers it talks about (Wittgenstein, Popper + Russell) and the realities in which they lived, history. While it may not show literally entire biographies in great detail, I was pleased with the degree to which it presents them. It is a popular history, so it is a good and quick read, it is not a scientific monograph of Wittgenstein's philosophy. On the other hand, however, this is not a book based only on scandals or tidbits, I had the impression that I learned a lot of valuable things about the times of the mentioned philosophers, their lives and philosophy. I think you could say that it is also a philosophical book, even if it were to be popular philosophy. Not only was it popular - the second part of the book was largely devoted to discussing the philosophy of Wittgenstein and Popper (and others) and it did it in a good and understandable way, without trivializing it at all. I thought this was a really good overview.
Wittgenstein's philosophy as it was presented, seemed fascinating to me - linguistic puzzles instead of philosophical problems, deconstruction of metaphysics, language games or language influencing us, but also flowing out of us. And philosophy as therapy, as in psychoanalysis. Actually, I'm mixing things up a bit, at the end of his life Wittgenstein changed his views, which were posthumously published into a new philosophical book. But I found both sets of views fascinating. In general, what made me interested in Wittgenstein's philosophy was Ewa Wąchocka's book "Silence in 20th-century drama", which (if I remember correctly) discussed how the philosophy of language became important for 20th-century creators and thinkers, influencing post-modernists and creators of the Theater of the Absurd such as Samuel Beckett . I found the tension between language, silence, and what one wants to say (as well as the tension between two individuals) described in it fascinating.
Wittgenstein himself seemed fascinating and tormented like Beethoven. The heir to a great fortune who gave money to his siblings to live with only what was necessary. A man, it seems, to some extent committed to the social democratic mission, who initially taught in a rural high school. After a long period, he became a lecturer at Cambridge. However, after some time, he gathers in a secluded house to solve philosophical problems and create his own philosophy. He was against the manner and status of academic lecturers and repeatedly returned to physical work. He also actively participated in wars, trying to support the countries where he lived. We get to know Wittgenstein as a person tormented by philosophical problems and philosophy, solving them was extremely important to him. Inaccuracies in the statements of people he came into contact with were tormenting for him. He was quoted as shouting questions such as "What do you mean it's a nice tree?". Wittgenstein was portrayed as a person who was always ready to criticize others for their inaccuracies, thoughtlessness, bad philosophy. With his intense statements and monologues, he completely occupied the attention of others, which they usually did not complain about - the Austrian had a magnetic influence on people. He was also tormented, constantly thinking about suicide. The authors of "Poker" actually presented him as a fascinating person, encouraging me to read his philosophical books and biography. Heck, I wish I had more space, because I could write about Wittgenstein for a long time (Did you know that during World War II he thought about emigrating to Stalin's Russia?).
Wittgenstein was by far the most fascinating character in the book. The discussed dispute, debate and conflict between Wittgenstein and Popper in Cambridge was also very interesting, like the fact that one of them had to use a poker to vent his anger. Its background and participants are discussed, its different versions are confronted, and at the end we come to a conclusion about what it actually looked like. I really watched the meeting of philosophers with great curiosity. Russell himself was also intriguing. In general, a lot of the book was devoted to logic, people and the circle that dealt with it. I would never have thought before that a discussion about logic could get people red hot. It made me curious about: people, their conflicts and logic itself. For me, examining logic in this way was like being in another reality or looking at aliens, and it intrigued me and I really enjoyed reading about it.
The background was also fascinating: the historic, multicultural Vienna of the fin-de-siecle era with its geniuses, Europe during the wars, the struggle against the Nazis, and finally Cambridge as the home of the philosophical cream of the crop. It was really interesting to read about them. In general, the narrative elements were well dosed so that reading was not boring or monotonous. I was only a little bored with the parts of the narrative devoted to Popper, probably because Wittgenstein simply outshined him with his magnetic personality. Popper looks quite ordinary in comparison. Although the moments discussing his open society philosophy were interesting. His way of finding himself in the war and interwar realities was also interesting. I was surprised and interested in the fact that the seemingly calm Popper turned out to be no less conflictual and dominant than Wittgenstein.
I think I've already covered the elements I'd like to talk about. It was interesting to see how Wittgenstein tried to redefine philosophy, what his conflicts and tribulations were, and it was interesting to learn about his era. So I can totally recommend the book, it's a good look at both philosophy and philosophers and I had a great time reading it. I hope to read more of the authors' books in the future. Speaking of books about philosophers, I recently found and started reading "The Visionaries" by Eilenberger, about how philosophy influenced women philosophers during the war. The heroines of the book are Hannah Arendt, Ayn Randt, Simone Weil and Simone de Beauvoir. Distinct personalities described in an intriguing way in dark times. I hope I like it as much as "Wittgenstein's Poker".
Wittgenstein's philosophy as it was presented, seemed fascinating to me - linguistic puzzles instead of philosophical problems, deconstruction of metaphysics, language games or language influencing us, but also flowing out of us. And philosophy as therapy, as in psychoanalysis. Actually, I'm mixing things up a bit, at the end of his life Wittgenstein changed his views, which were posthumously published into a new philosophical book. But I found both sets of views fascinating. In general, what made me interested in Wittgenstein's philosophy was Ewa Wąchocka's book "Silence in 20th-century drama", which (if I remember correctly) discussed how the philosophy of language became important for 20th-century creators and thinkers, influencing post-modernists and creators of the Theater of the Absurd such as Samuel Beckett . I found the tension between language, silence, and what one wants to say (as well as the tension between two individuals) described in it fascinating.
Wittgenstein himself seemed fascinating and tormented like Beethoven. The heir to a great fortune who gave money to his siblings to live with only what was necessary. A man, it seems, to some extent committed to the social democratic mission, who initially taught in a rural high school. After a long period, he became a lecturer at Cambridge. However, after some time, he gathers in a secluded house to solve philosophical problems and create his own philosophy. He was against the manner and status of academic lecturers and repeatedly returned to physical work. He also actively participated in wars, trying to support the countries where he lived. We get to know Wittgenstein as a person tormented by philosophical problems and philosophy, solving them was extremely important to him. Inaccuracies in the statements of people he came into contact with were tormenting for him. He was quoted as shouting questions such as "What do you mean it's a nice tree?". Wittgenstein was portrayed as a person who was always ready to criticize others for their inaccuracies, thoughtlessness, bad philosophy. With his intense statements and monologues, he completely occupied the attention of others, which they usually did not complain about - the Austrian had a magnetic influence on people. He was also tormented, constantly thinking about suicide. The authors of "Poker" actually presented him as a fascinating person, encouraging me to read his philosophical books and biography. Heck, I wish I had more space, because I could write about Wittgenstein for a long time (Did you know that during World War II he thought about emigrating to Stalin's Russia?).
Wittgenstein was by far the most fascinating character in the book. The discussed dispute, debate and conflict between Wittgenstein and Popper in Cambridge was also very interesting, like the fact that one of them had to use a poker to vent his anger. Its background and participants are discussed, its different versions are confronted, and at the end we come to a conclusion about what it actually looked like. I really watched the meeting of philosophers with great curiosity. Russell himself was also intriguing. In general, a lot of the book was devoted to logic, people and the circle that dealt with it. I would never have thought before that a discussion about logic could get people red hot. It made me curious about: people, their conflicts and logic itself. For me, examining logic in this way was like being in another reality or looking at aliens, and it intrigued me and I really enjoyed reading about it.
The background was also fascinating: the historic, multicultural Vienna of the fin-de-siecle era with its geniuses, Europe during the wars, the struggle against the Nazis, and finally Cambridge as the home of the philosophical cream of the crop. It was really interesting to read about them. In general, the narrative elements were well dosed so that reading was not boring or monotonous. I was only a little bored with the parts of the narrative devoted to Popper, probably because Wittgenstein simply outshined him with his magnetic personality. Popper looks quite ordinary in comparison. Although the moments discussing his open society philosophy were interesting. His way of finding himself in the war and interwar realities was also interesting. I was surprised and interested in the fact that the seemingly calm Popper turned out to be no less conflictual and dominant than Wittgenstein.
I think I've already covered the elements I'd like to talk about. It was interesting to see how Wittgenstein tried to redefine philosophy, what his conflicts and tribulations were, and it was interesting to learn about his era. So I can totally recommend the book, it's a good look at both philosophy and philosophers and I had a great time reading it. I hope to read more of the authors' books in the future. Speaking of books about philosophers, I recently found and started reading "The Visionaries" by Eilenberger, about how philosophy influenced women philosophers during the war. The heroines of the book are Hannah Arendt, Ayn Randt, Simone Weil and Simone de Beauvoir. Distinct personalities described in an intriguing way in dark times. I hope I like it as much as "Wittgenstein's Poker".
September 28, 2019
Calling Wittgenstein a great philosopher would appear to be a highly charitable view given his terrible sense and fondness for oracular statements. It demonstrates the rather low bar that autocratic and possibly mentally unwell personalities have to meet in order to make a mark in the world of philosophy. Indeed, one of the more puzzling aspects of this book is how it is possible that nearly 300 pages of material could be written (even on smallish pages) over an interaction that lasted ten minutes long in a meeting room in Cambridge where two philosophers who traveled in similar circles as exiled and irreligious Viennese Jews met each other for the first and only time and things did not go particularly well. The story is compelling enough, but making an entire book out of the incident might strike many people as being somewhat excessive in terms of what needs to be worked up to make the incident that serious and that worthwhile. As someone who is used to seeing historically important people have books written of small and obscure incidents, though, this book is by no means the most insignificant moment that I have read a book about, so at least it has that going for it.
This particular book is divided into 23 chapters. The author begins with a discussion of the noted poker itself (1) and then looks at the subject of memory and its deceptiveness (2). There is a discussion about the way that both Popper and Wittgenstein bewitched others through charm (3), and the disciples that each of them had collected, especially Wittgenstein (4). There is a look at the third man, Bertrand Russell, who brought Popper to the discussion in order to tweak Wittgenstein (5). There is a discussion of the faculty of Cambridge (6) and its politics as well as a look at the Jewish context of the lives of both men, which takes several chapters (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), including a chapter about the death of the head of the Vienna Circle, a man deeply hostile to Popper (13), and Popper's ambivalent relationship with that circle (14, 15, 16). The author also examines Popper's rising success (17) and the question about puzzles and problems that divided the two (18, 19). Finally, the author seeks to moderate the opinions of the incident by presenting an approach of seeking to harmonize accounts and give all of the people involved the benefit of the doubt, which leads to a detailed discussion of the accounts the authors received from eyewitnesses of the contretemps, included in an appendix.
What is fascinating about this book is the way that it blends so many aspects together of philosophy and culture. No one reading this book with a remotely fair mind (if such a thing can be said about me as a reader) can leave without realizing that famous philosophers are as much human beings as the rest of us. And that is not always a good thing. We remember things wrong, remember ourselves as the heroes of our encounters even if we remember what we could have and should have said instead of what we did actually say, and get involved in decades-long drama over petty incidents with other people. It just so happens that these people were noted figures in a very small world of 20th century philosophers. As a reader I found myself being ultimately a fan of neither of the philosophers or their approaches, although I found more to like and appreciate about Popper than about Wittgenstein, but that is something would be fairly obvious given my own ideological perspectives and my own worldview. This book is mainly for philosophically inclined readers, as many casual readers will not know what the fuss is about.
This particular book is divided into 23 chapters. The author begins with a discussion of the noted poker itself (1) and then looks at the subject of memory and its deceptiveness (2). There is a discussion about the way that both Popper and Wittgenstein bewitched others through charm (3), and the disciples that each of them had collected, especially Wittgenstein (4). There is a look at the third man, Bertrand Russell, who brought Popper to the discussion in order to tweak Wittgenstein (5). There is a discussion of the faculty of Cambridge (6) and its politics as well as a look at the Jewish context of the lives of both men, which takes several chapters (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), including a chapter about the death of the head of the Vienna Circle, a man deeply hostile to Popper (13), and Popper's ambivalent relationship with that circle (14, 15, 16). The author also examines Popper's rising success (17) and the question about puzzles and problems that divided the two (18, 19). Finally, the author seeks to moderate the opinions of the incident by presenting an approach of seeking to harmonize accounts and give all of the people involved the benefit of the doubt, which leads to a detailed discussion of the accounts the authors received from eyewitnesses of the contretemps, included in an appendix.
What is fascinating about this book is the way that it blends so many aspects together of philosophy and culture. No one reading this book with a remotely fair mind (if such a thing can be said about me as a reader) can leave without realizing that famous philosophers are as much human beings as the rest of us. And that is not always a good thing. We remember things wrong, remember ourselves as the heroes of our encounters even if we remember what we could have and should have said instead of what we did actually say, and get involved in decades-long drama over petty incidents with other people. It just so happens that these people were noted figures in a very small world of 20th century philosophers. As a reader I found myself being ultimately a fan of neither of the philosophers or their approaches, although I found more to like and appreciate about Popper than about Wittgenstein, but that is something would be fairly obvious given my own ideological perspectives and my own worldview. This book is mainly for philosophically inclined readers, as many casual readers will not know what the fuss is about.
July 24, 2019
Utterly fascinating--but why?
I picked this up more or less by accident. The text quickly engaged me and I read the book rather quickly. But why? I had almost no knowledge about Ludwig Wittgenstein the logical positivist philosopher, and only a little more about Karl Popper one of the leading philosophers of science. Philosophy since Hume has mostly left me uninterested. While some people think (famously) that all philosophy consists merely of footnotes to Plato, I've always believed that the great empiricists, especially David Hume put to rest most of the important questions.
The focus is a meeting of the Moral Science Club at Cambridge on October 25, 1946 in which it is alleged that Ludwig Wittgenstein in exasperation at his inability to shut Karl Popper up (or perhaps because of his inability to successfully counter Popper's arguments) picked up a red hot poker from the fireplace and waved it menacingly at Popper, and then departed the room.
What actually happened is a matter of some curious and lengthy debate according to the various accounts from those present. Edmonds and Eidinow go to some length to establish the various points of view and to explain why what happened happened. They take a thorough look at the background and personalities of Wittgenstein and Popper. This is the strength of the book: the fascinating detail about the lives and ideas of the two protagonists set against the horrific history of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Both Wittgenstein and Popper came from Vienna to England, both were Jewish and both had disciples and followers who considered them giants in philosophy. Significantly, Wittgenstein was born into a very wealthy family while Popper's roots are more middle class.
Wittgenstein believed that the questions of philosophy were linguistic "puzzles," a belief that offended Popper who believed that there were genuine "problems" yet to be solved in philosophy; and furthermore, to relegate the problems of philosophy to mere "puzzles" was to demean philosophy itself and its practitioners.
I have no idea who is right. In fact, even after reading this book, I am still in a fog about the difference between a "puzzle" and a "problem" except to note that puzzles should be relatively trivial compared to problems. My inclination is to lean toward Popper, author of the famous and highly influential books, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) and other works. Wittgenstein's published works are not as celebrated, but according to Edmonds and Eidinow he is regarded among professional philosophers as one of the greatest of all time, to rank ahead of Hume and Descartes, behind Aristotle, Plato, Kant and Nietzsche. (p. 292)
Consequently in addition to providing the reader with a most interesting tale of intellectual warfare, this book has inspired me to read more about the philosophy of Wittgenstein and Popper. In particular I want to compare Popper's ideas about the philosophy of science with those of Thomas Kuhn.
Bottom line: this is the only book I know of about the lives and works of philosophers that is in any way a threat to become a Hollywood movie.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
I picked this up more or less by accident. The text quickly engaged me and I read the book rather quickly. But why? I had almost no knowledge about Ludwig Wittgenstein the logical positivist philosopher, and only a little more about Karl Popper one of the leading philosophers of science. Philosophy since Hume has mostly left me uninterested. While some people think (famously) that all philosophy consists merely of footnotes to Plato, I've always believed that the great empiricists, especially David Hume put to rest most of the important questions.
The focus is a meeting of the Moral Science Club at Cambridge on October 25, 1946 in which it is alleged that Ludwig Wittgenstein in exasperation at his inability to shut Karl Popper up (or perhaps because of his inability to successfully counter Popper's arguments) picked up a red hot poker from the fireplace and waved it menacingly at Popper, and then departed the room.
What actually happened is a matter of some curious and lengthy debate according to the various accounts from those present. Edmonds and Eidinow go to some length to establish the various points of view and to explain why what happened happened. They take a thorough look at the background and personalities of Wittgenstein and Popper. This is the strength of the book: the fascinating detail about the lives and ideas of the two protagonists set against the horrific history of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Both Wittgenstein and Popper came from Vienna to England, both were Jewish and both had disciples and followers who considered them giants in philosophy. Significantly, Wittgenstein was born into a very wealthy family while Popper's roots are more middle class.
Wittgenstein believed that the questions of philosophy were linguistic "puzzles," a belief that offended Popper who believed that there were genuine "problems" yet to be solved in philosophy; and furthermore, to relegate the problems of philosophy to mere "puzzles" was to demean philosophy itself and its practitioners.
I have no idea who is right. In fact, even after reading this book, I am still in a fog about the difference between a "puzzle" and a "problem" except to note that puzzles should be relatively trivial compared to problems. My inclination is to lean toward Popper, author of the famous and highly influential books, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) and other works. Wittgenstein's published works are not as celebrated, but according to Edmonds and Eidinow he is regarded among professional philosophers as one of the greatest of all time, to rank ahead of Hume and Descartes, behind Aristotle, Plato, Kant and Nietzsche. (p. 292)
Consequently in addition to providing the reader with a most interesting tale of intellectual warfare, this book has inspired me to read more about the philosophy of Wittgenstein and Popper. In particular I want to compare Popper's ideas about the philosophy of science with those of Thomas Kuhn.
Bottom line: this is the only book I know of about the lives and works of philosophers that is in any way a threat to become a Hollywood movie.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
December 11, 2020
Very entertaining book about Wittgenstein and Popper. Their backgrounds and personalities, and short introductions to their philosophies. The book is composed around the brief argument between Popper and Wittgenstein at a seminar in Cambridge in 1946, at which Wittgenstein angrily waved a fireplace poker. This was the only time they ever met. The incident became legend and can be seen as a small theatrical enactment symbolizing the confict between the school that claims there are real philosophical problems and the school that claims there are only language puzzles.
I do think the authors exaggerate the drama of the actual altercation, as if it was a kind of duel at sunrise, but that's ok. It's entertainment. I also think the authors are a little pro-Wittgenstein, but maybe that's because I'm a Popperian. The authors also think that Popper's name is slowly fading and Wittgenstein is still in the center of attention. This made me look at the book's publication date, which is 2001. Wittgenstein was of course all the fashion for quite some time, with a guru-like charisma, and maybe many people today have heard of his name, but I doubt whether they could say anything about his philosophy, which is rather esoteric and hard to understand. Popper's ideas on the other hand are plain and simple and practical. Many have heard of the principle of falsification, which has defeated Wittgenstein's empiricism and verification. Popper after all is the self-confessed killer of logical positivism. His idea of objective knowledge created by the scientific method of inventing theories and then testing them against the facts and trying to refute them, is more useful then endless discussion of subjective meaning and belief in various statements. The growth of objective knowledge actually leads to progress.
Popper's ideas have a lasting usefulness in many areas, including politics. Even his The Open Society and its Enemies, written during WWII, is very relevant again today with the rise of new enemies in the form of anti-rational, censorious, tribalistic identity politics or critical social justice theory or wokeness or whatever its name is.
I do think the authors exaggerate the drama of the actual altercation, as if it was a kind of duel at sunrise, but that's ok. It's entertainment. I also think the authors are a little pro-Wittgenstein, but maybe that's because I'm a Popperian. The authors also think that Popper's name is slowly fading and Wittgenstein is still in the center of attention. This made me look at the book's publication date, which is 2001. Wittgenstein was of course all the fashion for quite some time, with a guru-like charisma, and maybe many people today have heard of his name, but I doubt whether they could say anything about his philosophy, which is rather esoteric and hard to understand. Popper's ideas on the other hand are plain and simple and practical. Many have heard of the principle of falsification, which has defeated Wittgenstein's empiricism and verification. Popper after all is the self-confessed killer of logical positivism. His idea of objective knowledge created by the scientific method of inventing theories and then testing them against the facts and trying to refute them, is more useful then endless discussion of subjective meaning and belief in various statements. The growth of objective knowledge actually leads to progress.
Popper's ideas have a lasting usefulness in many areas, including politics. Even his The Open Society and its Enemies, written during WWII, is very relevant again today with the rise of new enemies in the form of anti-rational, censorious, tribalistic identity politics or critical social justice theory or wokeness or whatever its name is.
July 20, 2012
This is a stellar book about a legendary story in academic philosophy: the confrontation between Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, two of the twentieth century's biggest philosophers -- and two of the most different.
At a meeting of the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club in 1946, Karl Popper gave a lecture entitled "Are there philosophical problems?", in which he propounded a view which he knew would be directly opposed to Wittgenstein's, who believed that philosophical problems are merely a result of confusions of language, and that all we must do is puzzle out these confusions and the problem will disappear. Allegedly, the discussion got so heated that Wittgenstein was gesticulating with a fire poker in his hand, ultimately throwing it down to the floor and storming out of the room in disgust. Bertrand Russell, another towering figure in philosophy at the time (and Wittgenstein's former mentor), was also in attendance and reportedly told Wittgenstein to "calm down". Amusingly, the minutes of the meeting understatedly record that the meeting was "charged to an unusual degree with a spirit of controversy".
Edmonds and Eidinow sift through the reports of the event (as told in memoirs and recollections of varying distance from the actual encounter) to try to determine what actually happened at that fateful meeting. Along the way they explore the lives and philosophies of the two men at the heart of the story, which charges the re-telling of the event with the personalities of those involved, making vivid what a moment it must have been.
This is also a great introduction, through a fascinating story, to some of the central debates of Anglo-American philosophy in the early twentieth century.
At a meeting of the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club in 1946, Karl Popper gave a lecture entitled "Are there philosophical problems?", in which he propounded a view which he knew would be directly opposed to Wittgenstein's, who believed that philosophical problems are merely a result of confusions of language, and that all we must do is puzzle out these confusions and the problem will disappear. Allegedly, the discussion got so heated that Wittgenstein was gesticulating with a fire poker in his hand, ultimately throwing it down to the floor and storming out of the room in disgust. Bertrand Russell, another towering figure in philosophy at the time (and Wittgenstein's former mentor), was also in attendance and reportedly told Wittgenstein to "calm down". Amusingly, the minutes of the meeting understatedly record that the meeting was "charged to an unusual degree with a spirit of controversy".
Edmonds and Eidinow sift through the reports of the event (as told in memoirs and recollections of varying distance from the actual encounter) to try to determine what actually happened at that fateful meeting. Along the way they explore the lives and philosophies of the two men at the heart of the story, which charges the re-telling of the event with the personalities of those involved, making vivid what a moment it must have been.
This is also a great introduction, through a fascinating story, to some of the central debates of Anglo-American philosophy in the early twentieth century.
June 26, 2020
Edmonds and Eidinow tell a surprisingly exciting story in Wittgenstein's Poker. They base the drama on vivid portraits of this book's two protagonists: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. Both men were assimilated Austrian Jews, philosophers, and geniuses with huge opinions of themselves. Wittgenstein, however, came from enormous wealth and privilege and he established his reputation by writing a classic work of philosophy when he was still a young man. Popper came from more of a middle class background, the kind that Wittgenstein might have looked down on. Unlike Wittgenstein, he struggled for years to make his mark, but finally came out with his own deeply influential work of philosophy when he was in his 40s, a work that Wittgenstein had apparently not read. Each of them was usually the most forceful, not to say boorish, debater in any argument he became involved in.
This is a lot of buildup for an argument that lasted 10 minutes, couldn't possibly have been that substantive, and ended with Wittgenstein waving a poker around before charging out of the room. Still, the authors somehow manage to make it a gripping story.
If you come to Wittgenstein's Poker in the hope of learning a bunch about Wittgenstein's ideas (or Karl Popper's) then you are going to be disappointed. You get what you need to know to understand why the argument was so important to each of the men involved, but not much more than that. This is more of a biography/historical drama, than a book about philosophy.
This is a lot of buildup for an argument that lasted 10 minutes, couldn't possibly have been that substantive, and ended with Wittgenstein waving a poker around before charging out of the room. Still, the authors somehow manage to make it a gripping story.
If you come to Wittgenstein's Poker in the hope of learning a bunch about Wittgenstein's ideas (or Karl Popper's) then you are going to be disappointed. You get what you need to know to understand why the argument was so important to each of the men involved, but not much more than that. This is more of a biography/historical drama, than a book about philosophy.
September 4, 2009
I found the historical sketches which were basically book-ended with descriptions of "the poker incident" to be well worth the read. Very interesting little insights into the lesser known (or even thought of) effects of WWI and WWII. I learned some valuable things about European history, specifically the intellectual and political climate of Vienna leading up to and during WWII.
I also got some useful ideas through broad overviews of both Popper's and Wittgenstein's careers of their philosophical positions and evolutions. I look forward to reading Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies and to a slightly lesser extent The Logic of Scientific Discovery, and diving into the strange (but hopefully and most likely fascinating) world of Wittgenstein's philosophy, both the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus era and the rest of his career in which he -- from what I've gathered from the man himself and other commentary -- essentially refutes everything he said in his most widely praised work.
I also got some useful ideas through broad overviews of both Popper's and Wittgenstein's careers of their philosophical positions and evolutions. I look forward to reading Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies and to a slightly lesser extent The Logic of Scientific Discovery, and diving into the strange (but hopefully and most likely fascinating) world of Wittgenstein's philosophy, both the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus era and the rest of his career in which he -- from what I've gathered from the man himself and other commentary -- essentially refutes everything he said in his most widely praised work.
February 28, 2023
ویتگنشتاین - پوپر و ماجرای سیخ بخاری
نشر نی
دیوید ادموندز، جان آیدینو
اسم کتاب کمی از جدی بودن متنش فاصله داره و این واقعا برای اماده کردن ذهن برای فهم متنی که در پیش رو هست کارسازه.
کتاب در مورد چرایی یک اتفاقی هست که در دانشگاه کمبریج گذشته و این تصور ایجاد میشه که درحال شنیدن یک داستان هستم, داستانی که برخلاف انتظار من خواننده حتی یک قدم هم جلو نمیره ولی به لطف توضیحات, سرگذشت های فراوان و ارجاعات زیاد, چرایی این داستان کم کم شکل میگیره و باعث میشه کتاب لحن جدی و اموزنده بیشتری بگیره.
ترجمه فوقالعاده روان و پر از نکات خواندنی. برای افرادی که قصد آشنایی با ویتگنشتاین و تا حدودی هم پوپر رو دارند این کتاب میتونه شروع خوبی باشه.
نشر نی
دیوید ادموندز، جان آیدینو
اسم کتاب کمی از جدی بودن متنش فاصله داره و این واقعا برای اماده کردن ذهن برای فهم متنی که در پیش رو هست کارسازه.
کتاب در مورد چرایی یک اتفاقی هست که در دانشگاه کمبریج گذشته و این تصور ایجاد میشه که درحال شنیدن یک داستان هستم, داستانی که برخلاف انتظار من خواننده حتی یک قدم هم جلو نمیره ولی به لطف توضیحات, سرگذشت های فراوان و ارجاعات زیاد, چرایی این داستان کم کم شکل میگیره و باعث میشه کتاب لحن جدی و اموزنده بیشتری بگیره.
ترجمه فوقالعاده روان و پر از نکات خواندنی. برای افرادی که قصد آشنایی با ویتگنشتاین و تا حدودی هم پوپر رو دارند این کتاب میتونه شروع خوبی باشه.
August 20, 2009
A good book, but you will be bored if you know anything about Wittgenstein and/or Popper's thought already. I enjoyed it because I'd love to know more about both but I am busy with the rest of my life and sadly cannot throw it all aside to study these men's works, no matter how much they deserve it. If you want a book that you can read on the bus but will still make you smarter, this is it.
January 17, 2008
My knowledge of philosophy was pretty much limited to Popeye’s “I yam what I yam.” So this book was a delight – learning about an (in)famous incident and two well-known and regarded philosophers from back in the day. Great informative read.
August 30, 2019
Great men are only human...An entretaining story of two philosophers from Vienna in the XXth century.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 320 reviews