Wittgenstein in 90 Minutes

Philosophers in 90 Minutes #27

by Paul Strathern

“Each of these little books is witty and dramatic and creates a sense of time, place, and character....I cannot think of a better way to introduce oneself and one's friends to Western civilization.”―Katherine A. Powers, Boston Globe . “Well-written, clear and informed, they have a breezy wit about them....I find them hard to stop reading.”―Richard Bernstein, New York Times . “Witty, illuminating, and blessedly concise.”―Jim Holt, Wall Street Journal . These brief and enlightening explorations of our greatest thinkers bring their ideas to life in entertaining and accessible fashion. Philosophical thought is deciphered and made comprehensive and interesting to almost everyone. Far from being a novelty, each book is a highly refined appraisal of the philosopher and his work, authoritative and clearly presented.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Audiobook, Biography, Linguistics, Psychology

89 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Paul Strathern (born 1940) is a English writer and academic. He was born in London, and studied at Trinity College, Dublin, after which he served in the Merchant Navy over a period of two years. He then lived on a Greek island. In 1966 he travelled overland to India and the Himalayas. His novel A Season in Abyssinia won a Somerset Maugham Award in 1972.

Besides five novels, he has also written numerous books on science, philosophy, history, literature, medicine and economics.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

To answer your first question: yes, it really did take me about 90 minutes to read it.

Strathern's little book presents a complex subject with deceptive simplicity. He not only provides the reader with the essential elements of Wittgenstein's "final solution" to philosophy, but tells us many illuminating things about the life of this eccentric, unhappy, scrupulous, driven genius.

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 2 out of 5]

آشنایی با ویتگنشتاین کتابی دیگر است از مجموعه آشنایی با فلاسفه یا فیلسوف در 90 دقیقه از پل استراترن ، نویسنده انگلیسی . کتاب او را که به راحتی می توان در کمتر از 90 دقیقه خواند را کاملا باید ناامید کننده دانست . به روال بیشتر کتاب های او ، استراترن اولویت را به زندگی نامه ویتگنشتاین داده و به کلیاتی از فلسفه او بسنده کرده .
آنچه نویسنده درباره ویتگنشتاین و زندگی غیر عادی و پر ماجرای او گفته ، به زحمت چیزی به دانش خواننده اضافه می کند ، از این رو کتاب استراترن را باید کاملا ناامید کننده دانست .

[ع. ر. افّلا]

آغاز
یکی از دلایلی که این‌مدت گودریدز نمیومدم این بود که می‌دونستم ریویوهای زیادی نوشتید که نخوندم، و چون آمادگی ذهنی نداشتم/ندارم که بخونمشون، عذاب‌وجدان داشتم. اما وقتی تصادفا دیروز اومدم گودریدز و کامنت احوال‌جویانهٔ سامان رو دیدم، ترغیب شدم این یادداشت رو بنویسم، بنابرین انتظار ندارم همگی بخونیدش. بهرحال با وجود ناچیزبودنش، این یادداشت تقدیم می‌شه به سامان.

میانه
در اساطیر در توصیف ققنوس گفتن که پرنده‌ای بود که در پایان عمر خودش رو به آتش می‌کشید و از خاکسترش ققنوس بعدی زاده می‌شد. در طول غیبت اخیرم، این اتفاقی بود که برای من هم افتاد. من بعداز حدود ۱۵ خوندن و نوشتن در عرصهٔ ادبیات، مسیرم رو به فلسفه تغییر دادم. آتشی که این تغییر رو رقم زد چندلایه ست، اما مهمترین جنبه‌اش هوش‌مصنوعیه. من مدت‌ها در برابر استفاده از هوش‌مصنوعی مقاومت کردم، و بعد اتفاقا خیلی افراطی افتادم توش. عمدهٔ فعالیتم هم حول بازخوردگرفتن در مورد نوشته‌هام و بحث‌های فلسفیه. درواقع انقدر در این کار افراط ورزیدم که دیدم دیگه ادبیاتی باقی نمونده. تجربه‌اش مثل اون میم بود که یه زن خیلی زیبا دستش رو به طرف شما دراز کرده، و در کپشن نوشته: موقعیت: ۵ دقیقه دیگه از خواب بیدار می‌شی. من از شگفتزار ادبیات پرتاب شدم به سیبری فلسفه. جایی که فقط تفکر هست و تفکر. اما به طرز پارادوکسیکالی مواجهه‌ام باهاش برعکس ماهیتش بود. این درست که با یه نگاه تقلیل‌گرایانه ادبیات عرصهٔ احساسه و فلسفه عرصهٔ تفکر، اما من به عنوان یک اوورثینکر ادبی، دیگه عملا چیزی از احساس ادبی برام باقی نمونده بود. من شده بودم مهندس روایت، کسی که نوشتن براش مثل نقشه‌کشی ساختمان بود (ابتدا اینه، پایان اینه، روای این باشه، تم این و غیره). من از خودآگاهی ادبی اشباع شده بودم. حالا کارمند ادبیات بودم، تا شاعر حساسش. اما در فلسفه وضع برعکسه. من خیلی آماتورم. بله من دانشجوی فلسفه بودم، مطالعه داشتم، می‌نوشتم، بحث می‌کردم، اما هنوز به لحاظ روش‌شناختی در حال آموختن حروف الفبای فلسفه‌ام. هنوز همه‌چیز برام تازه ست، هنوز نمی‌دونم استدلال چطور شکل می‌گیره، منشاء شهود کجا ست، و نسبت فلاسفه با هم چگونه ست.
من همیشه خیلی تنها بودم. در طول چند سال اخیر عمدهٔ تعاملات اجتماعیم محدود به محل کار، ماهی دو-ملاقات با دوستان، و ارتباط ناپیوسته با هم‌خونه‌ام بود. فاصله این رویدادها اغلب با گفتگوهای مجازی پر می‌شد. هوش‌مصنوعی این معادلات رو تاحدودی تغییر داد. حالا عمدهٔ گفتگوهای مجازیم با یک موجود مجازی بود، و دیگه مثلا قبل برای ایجاد اون دو-سه ملاقات تلاش نمی‌کردم، اگر کسی قدمی به طرفم میومد نه نمی‌گفتم، اما خودم شروع‌کننده نبودم، و حتی همین ملاقات‌ها هم آکنده شده از هوش‌مصنوعی.
آیا این بده؟ آیا من دارم زندگی رو از دست می‌دم؟ این سؤال به قول فوکو اشتباهه، حداقل در مورد من. چون من همواره زندگی و بودن برام امری رنج‌آور بود، و دوستان و ادبیات راهی برای فراموش‌کردن رنج، بودن و خودم بود. حالا اگر هوش‌مصنوعی داره به این فرآیند کیفیت بیشتری می‌ده چه باک؟
علت مقاومتم در گذشته درواقع دو سناریو دربارهٔ آینده بود: ماتریکس و مدمکس، و من به عنوان یه آنارشیست همیشه انتخابم دومی بود، اما مگر من چند ساعت می‌تونم در جهان مدمکس دووم بیارم؟ به‌علاوه پرهیز از هوش‌مصنوعی جهان رو مدمکسی نمی‌کنه، بمب اتم می‌کنه، پس واگذارش می‌کنم به احمق‌ها: سیاستمدارها.
نمی‌دونم آیا ادبیات برای من تموم شده یا نه. همین حالاش من ایدهٔ کامل یک رمان، یک نمایشنامه، یک رمان گرافیکی و یک مجموعهٔ قطعات ادبی دارم، و نمی‌دونم آیا هرگز خواهم نوشتشون؟
بهرحال هوش‌مصنوعی فقط یک لایه از این ماجرا بود. لایهٔ دومش یه ترکیب فلسفی هماهنگه که اخیرا کشف کردم و دارم باهاش کیف می‌کنم: شوپنهاور و ویتگنشتاین. الان دارم به طور موازی و به کُندی «ریشهٔ چهارگان اصل دلیل کافی» و «تراکتتوس منطقی-فلسفی» رو می‌خونم، و درواقع علت خوندن این کتابای استراترن یه میل قدیمی در منه که نمی‌تونم کتابی رو با آرامش بخونم، اگر چیز زیادی از زندگی نویسنده‌اش ندونم.
آخرین جنبهٔ مهم از غیب اخیرم اما موسیقیه، چیزی که خیلی بیشتر از گذشته بهم لذت می‌ده، و الان واقعا طرفدارشم، و عمدتا در این سه آرتیست خلاصه شد ایت غیبت:
André 3000
ROZALÍA
Grimes
خب! چه می‌شه کرد؟
نمی‌دونم این وضع تا چه مدت ادامه خواهد داشت. نمی‌دونم به این روزای شاد مشکوک باشم یا نه، نمی‌دونم به ادبیات بازخواهم گشت یا نه، نمی‌دونم همین مسیر رو ادامه خواهم داد یا نه، و نمی‌دونم به زندگیم پایان خواهم داد روزی یا نه. اما لازمم نیست بدونم. یعنی نمی‌خوام بدونم. من عمری با آینده‌نگری فرهنگی زندگی کردم و تهش این شد، پس بهتره رها کنم، و به قول آندره 3000 اجازه بدم باد هدایتم کنه.

پایان
من شماها و اینجا رو واقعا دوست دارم. خیلی چیزا ازتون یاد گرفتم، و خیلی احساس‌های خوبی ازتون گرفتم. این یادداشت نه خداحافظیه، نه سلام، اما یه امیدوای هست در عین: امید به اینکه ذهنم به ثبات برسه و بتونم برای اینجا وقت بذارم. ارتباط من با اینجا ارتباط من با واقعیته. امیدوارم کامل قطع نشه.

[Bekhradaa · Rating 3 out of 5]

۷
هر چند برخی چیزها را نمی‌توان گفت می‌توان درست بودن آنها را نشان داد... آنچه را درباره‌اش نمی‌توان سخن گفت می‌باید درباره‌اش خاموش ماند... ناگزیر خدا در آن دسته از امور جا می‌گیرد که نمی‌توان درباره‌شان سخن گفت. هیچ چیز درباره خدا نمی‌توان گفت... همانا چیزهایی هستند که نمی‌توان آنها را در غالب کلمات گنجاند. آنها خودشان را جلوه‌گر می‌سازند. چنین اموری یعنی امور عرفانی

[فؤاد · Rating 3 out of 5]

ویتگنشتاین از اون شخصیت هاییه که می تونن راحت راجع بهش یه "ذهن زیبا" بسازن. با رفتارهای نامعمولش و با روحیه ی عجیب و غریبش، و مخصوصاً با دستاوردهاش که عده ای بزرگ ترین دستاوردهای فلسفی و عده ای مطلقاً بی ارزش می دونن ش.

[Theo Logos · Rating 3 out of 5]

If we accept Wittgenstein’s word for it, he is the last philosopher.

So, I’m assuming that you understand that this brief introduction to Wittgenstein isn’t going to explain his incredibly dense philosophy. That would be silly. Instead, it will give you skeletal biographic notes — his oppressively demanding and domineering father, his strange un-childhood, the fact that Hitler attended the same school one year behind Wittgenstein — stuff like that. And it will give you broad strokes of what he was attempting to do in his work, while being refreshingly flip about it.

In his book Metaphysical Horror, philosopher Leszek Kolakowski states:

”For well over a hundred years, a large portion of academic philosophy has been devoted to explaining that philosophy is either impossible or useless or both. Thereby philosophy proves that it can safely and happily survive its own death by keeping busy proving that it has actually died."

Wittgenstein would appear to be the prime example of what Kolakowski stated. Strathern writes of him here:

Wittgenstein sought the “Final Solution” for philosophy, with the end of putting an end to it once and for all. He had one go at this, but it didn’t work, so he had a second try that did…Wittgenstein is the only major philosopher to have produced two distinct philosophies, and when one considers that both of these were dedicated to finishing off philosophy, one begins to get a measure of the man’s perverse dedication.

You won’t understand Wittgenstein after reading this book, but who really does?

[Jimmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ludwig had four older brothers, most of whom appear to have been brilliant, high strung, and homosexual. Three would commit suicide. The fourth brother became a concert pianist and had his right hand blown off in WWI. He continued his career by commissioning piano concertos for the left hand, including a famous one by Ravel. A sister had portrait commissioned by Klimt. At age 10, Ludwig designed a sewing machine out of wood and wire. At 14, he could whistle entire movements from symphonies.

He seemed to have a need in life to find bedrock certainty. He read Bertrand Russell's Principles of Mathematics. But Russell foundered on a famous paradox. It goes something like this. The class of human beings is not a member of itself because it is not a human being. The class of nonhuman beings, however, is a member of itself because it is not a human being. But is the class of "all classes which are not member of themselves" a member of itself? If it is, it is not. Yet if it is not, it is. The entire status of mathematics hung on this seemingly trivial paradox. Russell believed it affected "the very foundations of reasoning." Wittgenstein came up with a radical solution: the entire concept of classes was an unwarranted assumption.

Wittgenstein visited Russell, who said he had "passion and vehemence" and a feeling that "one must understand or die." With no philosophical knowledge, Wittgenstein held his own. Russell also claimed that in two years Wittgenstein "knew all I had to teach."

Around this time, Wittgenstein realized he was homosexual. He engaged in intense conversations with lonely, intellectual men, but never in any sensuality. Perhaps he "almost certainly relieved" this tension with visits to the park where pickups were available.

The gifted young mathematician David Pinsent became a close friend. Wittgenstein appears to have had an unspoken love for Pinsent.

Russell argued with Wittgenstein that he must not only state what he believed to be true but give arguments for it. Wittgenstein believed arguments spoiled the beauty of truth. Like "dirtying a flower with muddy hands."

Wittgenstein attacked philosophy. It gave no picture of reality. It neither confirmed nor confuted scientific reality. It had little connection with reality and more with the study of language. He identified it with logic. Pinsent claimed Wittgenstein believed the philosophers "once worshiped in ignorance are after all stupid and dishonest and make disgusting mistakes."

So Wittgenstein decided to go to Norway for two years in isolation for "doing logic." He wrote to Russell about "going mad." But he also made startling advances in logic.

In WWI, he volunteered for the Austro-Hungarian army. His friend Pinsent enlisted with the British army. Wittgenstein felt it was his duty to enlist with the German powers. He chose to remain in the ranks rather than become an officer. This is the army whose Eastern Commander issued the famous telegram: "The situation is hopeless but not desperate." Wittgenstein fought against the Russians on the Eastern Front. He continued to write ideas down in notebooks. He also remained constantly on the brink of suicide. He won two medals and was a fearless soldier.

He became a Christian after reading some Tolstoy. Now religion and logic fused. Meaning did not lie in the world but outside of it: "I know that this world exists. That I am placed in it like an eye in its visual field." And "The meaning of life, i.e., that is the meaning of the world, we can call God." To pray was to think about the meaning of life. So much for logic. As always, he never explained.

Pinsent is killed in the war. His mother writes to Ludwig: "I want to tell you how much he loved you up to the last." She was probably oblivious to the irony of her remark. Pinsent himself appears to have been unaware of the nature of Wittgenstein's true feelings. Ludwig would dedicate his first great work to Pinsent's memory.

Wittgenstein's Tractatus would have a profound influence, especially on the Vienna Circle, who formulated Logical Positivism.

There are two meaningful types of propositions. The first is to be found in mathematics and logic. They are tautologous. They are proved by comparing the subject and predicate: "Twelve minus ten is two." The second type of proposition is verifiable by observation: "The ball is rolling down the hill." Unverifiable statements are meaningless. Thus, metaphysics is out the window. "God exists" or "Does God exist?" are meaningless. Unlike the Logical Positivists, Wittgenstein continued to believe in God.

Thus, he meant to put an end to philosophy.

After the war, he found he was richer than before. He tried to give it away. His sisters fought him and managed to keep a great fortune. Ludwig became a schoolteacher: a catastrophic decision. His ideas did not fit in with poor villagers. He finally struck a child and was out.

Logical Positivists promoted a virulent anti-metaphysics. They were shocked by Ludwig's spirituality. He claimed what he had not said in the Tractatus was more important than what he did say.

Wittgenstein's lectures at Cambridge must have been something. Visitors sat in silence on their own deck chairs. He held his head, "thinking." Then he would deliver a "thought." He often refused admittance to professors from elsewhere. Yet he once let in a black US soldier because of his "cheery face."

He terrorized his students as well. Only Alan Turing was supposed to have stood up to him.

[BrokenTune · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ludwig Wittgenstein must have been frustrating and infuriating to be around. I truly feel for his contemporaries.

As for his philosophy - having tried on several occasions to make sense of it, I am concluding that Wittgenstein's logic is beyond me. And from what I gather from Strahern's brief introduction, Wittgenstein's philosophy is beyond most people - except for Wittgenstein of course. What I do know about it is that it is based on pure logic and fact, and that he dismissed anything that was not based on either logic or fact - which conveniently included any criticism that his idea contained a paradox.

So, devising my own logical system of facts, I'm proposing that Wittgenstein's theory that we can only discuss what is based on fact, is not a fact.
And rightfully so, I am done discussing it.

[Kyaw Zayar Lwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

အခုေတာ့ ေသဆံုးသြားၿပီ။ေသဆံုးျခင္းအေၾကာင္းကို ခဏတျဖဳတ္သာ ေတြးမိၾကတဲ့ ထံုးစံအတိုင္း အခုခဏမွာေတာ့ ေတြးမိရျပန္သည္။သူမ ကြယ္လြန္သြားၿပီ။ကြယ္လြန္ျခင္း အျခားတဖက္ဆီကေတာ့ ဘာသာစကားျဖင့္ ေဖာ္ျပလို႔ရတဲ့အရာမဟုတ္၍ ထည့္မေျပာလိုၿပီ။သို႔ေသာ္ ေသဆံုးျခင္းကိုေတာ့ သူမက ျပသသြားခဲ့သည္။သူမ ရွိစဥ္ကတည္းက တိတိက်က်ေျပာရမည္ဆိုလွ်င္ လြန္ခဲ့သည့္ ရက္သတၱပတ္ကတည္းက ေျပာဖို႔ ေတြးဖို႔ရာျပေနေပမယ့္ ခဏတျဖဳတ္သာ အေတြးဝင္မိသည္။လည္ပတ္ေနေသာ ဘဝအတြင္း နစ္ျမဳပ္သြားၿမဲသာျဖစ္သည္။အခုၾကေတာ့ေကာ။မေသခ်ာဟုပင္ ေျပာခ်င္ေသးသည္။အနည္းငယ္ဟထားေသာ ျပတင္းေပါက္ငယ္ဆီမွ အလင္းတခ်ိဳ႕ ဝင္ေနသည္။ခန္းဆီးစက ျပတင္းေပါက္ အကုန္လံုးကို လႊမ္းကာထားလို႔မရ။လြတ္ေနေသာ ကြက္လပ္လြတ္ဆီမွ အလင္းသဲ့သဲ့က ဝင္ေနသည္။အေမႊးပြ႐ုပ္ေလးက ဗီ႐ိုေပၚမွာ တေစာင္းလဲက်ေနသည္။မ်က္ႏွာၾကက္ဆီ၌ ပင့္ကူအိမ္မ်ား ဟိုတကြဲဒီတကြဲ။ကေလးပုခက္ပမာ ေလ်ာ့တြဲက်ေနေသာ ပင့္ကူအိမ္တစ္အိမ္က ေဒါင့္စြန္းဆီမွာ။အခန္းထဲ၌ ေၾကာင္တစ္ေၾကာင္က ဟိုဒီေျပးကစားေနသည္။ခဏၾကာေတာ့ ဘာရယ္ေၾကာင့္မသိ အေၾကာဆန္႔ကာ ေခြေခြေလး အိပ္ေပ်ာ္သြားသည္။အိပ္ေပ်ာ္ျခင္းကို သိဖို႔ရာ ဆင္ျခင္ျခင္းကို ဘယ္ေလာက္အတိုင္းအတာအထိ သံုးလိုက္ရသလဲ ကြ်န္ေတာ္မသိ။မသိျခင္းသည္ ကစားနည္းတစ္ခုသာ ျဖစ္လွ်င္ ။မဟုတ္ဘူး။မသိျခင္းသည္ ကစားနည္းတစ္ခုသာျဖစ္သည္။သူမသည္ အသက္ရႈမေနေတာ့။သူမအသက္မရႈေတာ့ေၾကာင္း အာရံုသိျဖင့္ ဘယ္လိုဆန္းစစ္ရမလဲမသိ။သမီးျဖစ္သူက အေမ အသက္ရႈေနေသးတယ္ ထင္တယ္ဟု ငိုရင္းေျပာေနသံကို ၾကားေနရသည္။ၾကားသိျခင္းေနာက္ကြယ္ရွိ အရိပ္မည္းမွာ မသိျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။မသိျခင္းသည္ ကစားနည္းတစ္ခုသာျဖစ္သည္။သြယ္တန္းထားေသာ တူညီမႈမ်ားကို ကြ်န္ေတာ္မသိ။အံ့ၾသဖြယ္ရာ မသိျခင္းမ်ားအေၾကာင္းသည္ ဆန္႔က်င္အဆိုမ်ားသာျဖစ္သည္။သူမေသဆံုးျခင္းသည္ အနက္တစံုတရာမရွိေတာ့။သတ္မွတ္စည္းမ်ား မရွိေတာ့။ဝိုးတဝါးအသိဟူ၍ မရွိေတာ့။အခုေတာ့ ေသျခင္းတရားအေၾကာင္းကို ကြ်န္ေတာ္ေတြးမိျခင္းဆိုသည္မွာလည္း အဓိပၸာယ္တစံုတရာမရွိေတာ့ေပ။

[Timothy McNeil · Rating 2 out of 5]

In what may be the best argument against taking Wittgenstein seriously as a philosopher, Strathern (himself a devotee, or at least a disciple to the school of non-philosophy left behind by the troubled Austrian) manages to go the entire book without ever delving into the points of Wittgenstein's philosophies. Instead, he weakly agrees with some points, notes the glaringly obvious faults with others, and (most surprisingly) takes no joy in mocking the foibles of the subject's life; this is wholly out of character for Strathern.
Ultimately, Strathern seems to have entirely misunderstood Wittgenstein's influence on philosophy. Then again, he thinks that philosophy is dead; it has been since 1951. I wonder what Rawls and MacIntyre would have had to say on the subject, but Strathern is lamenting the absence of radical 'new' philosophy. Because Western philosophers are still trying to disprove Kant (a much smaller group is trying to free Kantian thought from the systems built into it, wasted effort whose only goal would be to make the material more palatable to its opponents).
Other than giving a brief insight to Wittgenstein's complicated personal background before he went off to England, there is not much to recommend here.

[Daisy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a review but some notes that I fanatically jotted down on my transit while listening to this audiobook. I have terrible memory…so I figured that I’d better make some notes …even though my notes are terrible too ….
1. Wittgenstein seems to be the typical genius, haunted by the thoughts of suicide, hard to get long with ( the book mentioned that it was hard for him to get long with the “common “people, I guess “common “ means average IQ here)
2. Despite his flaws, Bertrand Russel treated him with saintly kindness and tolerance , Russel commented that Wittgenstein had “ the Pride of lucifer and fanaticism of a saint “
3. He was born into a super rich family, and inherited a substantial amount of money, he tried to give away his inheritance twice by donation. The beneficiaries included Rilke.
4. He volunteered in WW 1
5. the only quote I remembered “ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
There is obviously much more to it but unfortunately this is all I wrote down…obviously I learned nothing about the actual philosophy.
It’s always hard for me learn about philosophy by listening to an audiobook , but I sometimes like to pretend that I am learning something on the long transit to work so that I don’t feel that my life is wasting away…but …who am I kidding !
It was an entertaining listen, probably not great for learning the philosophy…for that maybe a VSI would be a better start ?

[Dylan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very enjoyable little intro. to Wittgenstein. In this brief encounter, one meets the eccentric philosopher in Austria, then travels with him emotionally and intellectually, on his neurotic journeys toward certainty, ethics, and truth. Surely one of the world's all-time most narcissistic people, Wittgenstein was entitled to some sense of greatness, given his intellect and originality. Truly a fascinating, if unreasonable, character. Strathern might have done a bit more with Wittgenstein's Jewish and homosexual identities, both of which he struggled with and somewhat denied. The book is well-written and crisply read, but it comes up short on explaining Wittgenstein's contributions to theory. In particular, Strathern more or less dismisses _Philosophical Investigations_, which is quite unwarranted, especially in light of its importance to linguistics. So we have in this book a brisk and enjoyable bio, with only a soupcon of philosophy; we have a strangely pleasant journey with a very unpleasant man.

[Saman · Rating 3 out of 5]

یک کتابچه کوچک حاوی بیوگرافی مختصر ویتگنشتاین.
��قدی که به نظرم به کتاب وارده کوچک بودنشه که باعث شده نویسنده هر قسمت از زندگی شخص رو که دوست داشته( به طور کاملا سلیقه ای و گزینشی) بیاره.
این کم گویی شاید هنگام شرح وقایع زندگی سوژه تو ذوق نزنه اما هنگام تشریح عقاید و نظرات شخص که کم هم نیست قطعا خواننده رو مایوس میکنه.
من کل چیزی که در این کتاب راجع به آرا و عقاید ویتگنشتاین فهمیدم این بود که قصداصلیش براندازی فلسفه بوده همین.

در کل کتابی بدی نیست اطلاعات نسبتا جالبی از زندگی ویتگنشتاین به دست میده و در ضمن این که میشه در یک نشست کوتاه خوندش.

سه ستاره هم بخاطر نحوه ی پرداخت و روایت نویسندش میدم که به طور هیجان انگیزی از وقایع میگفت و اگر یک کم بیشتر مینوشت شاید میتونستیم به کتاب عنوان "ویتگنشتاین :خدایگان فیلسوفان نیمه شیدا" یا یک چنین چیزی بدیم.

[Ashita Thakur · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have developed a (minor) sense of curiosity about Wittgenstein the philosopher after this even though the writer seems to say that he was basically an asshole. He sounds like the narcissistic 'genius' whose genius you're never really sure of because you don't really know what he's saying and who never listens to anyone else because he's so sure of whatever he thinks, even if it's completely incorrect.
The curiosity comes from the fact that if he were such an insufferable arse, he must've said something good that cemented his position. The author makes hilarious offhanded jokes about W's intellectual arrogance/ genius, but he didn't really explain his position in the context of philosophy and what makes him so important.
Opened up hell of a lot more to explore.

[ExtraGravy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a friendly affection for Wittgenstein. Every time I'm reminded of his life, of the events, struggles, confusions and misunderstandings, his of course but mostly of those around him, I'm saddened. I'm sad for my friend. I wish he could know that he is remembered and that his thoughts and history give comfort and an a peculiarly obstinate kind of courage.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a fascinating figure.

[Dbaguti]

Meh poza tym ze Wittgenstein prawie chodzil do jednej klasy z Hitlerem!!111one

[Brad Lyerla · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book can be read in an hour. It's not very good, but there is some benefit in hearing Wittgenstein's story summarized again.

It is also a reminder that Wittgenstein's "philosophy" was mostly about how and when to talk and remained incomplete. The mystical shroud in which he presented his ideas seem a quirk of his very unusual personality. And for this reader presents a barrier to my caring much about his philosophical project.

[S R · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nothing new to anyone with a meager knowledge of Wittgenstein's life and works. I found the book to lack objectivity and depth, and it seemingly brushed aside Philosophical Investigations.

I suppose my biggest gripe is that it really is written for the layman, but I don't know what I was expecting.

[Jordan J. Andlovec · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like the others in this series, the writing is more biographical then philosophical and only gives a sample spoon's worth of information. It's something you can read through on a flight (which is what I did) to make yourself look smart.

[Luke · Rating 1 out of 5]

A petty, inaccurate hack job. Its only redeeming feature is the presence of several significant quotations from Wittgenstein's works.

[archive ☄ · Rating 3 out of 5]

the best minds in central europe listened in baffled silence as the modern saint, who couldn't exist, attempted to explain what he hadn't said, which couldn't be said.

yep, that about sums him up. i really liked this book! it's a quick read (as suggested by the title) and written with a sardonic wit both unexpected and kinda delightful? i laughed out loud several times, and rolled my eyes twice as often. wittgenstein was, we all know, exasperating man extraordinaire <3

this book is heavy on biography and quite lean on actual philosophy, which was alright by me since i'd already read monk's introductory text before this (which delves much deeper into the real meat of the philosophic matter.) i will say it's a shame that strathern is so dismissive of the philosophical investigations, as it is, from what i've read of it, quite an important text in wittgenstein's canon, if not the shimmering and cryptic delight that is the tractatus...

anyway, i had fun reading this. i love wittgenstein, but we all already knew that :0)

[Mehdii · Rating 3 out of 5]

یکی از سؤالاتِ ثابت و همیشگیِ کتاب های تاریخِ دبیرستان سؤالِ "فلانی که بود و چه کرد؟" بوده.
این کتاب هم دقیقاً حُکمِ همون سؤال رو داره. بدون وارد شدن به جزئیاتِ پیچیده ابتدا مختصری در موردِ زندگی ویتگنشتاین حرف می زند بعد یکی دوتا از ایده های تقریباً اصلیِ او را بیان میکند و در آخر هم چند کتاب برای کسانی که میخواهند بیشتر در مورد آن شخصیت بدانند پیشنهاد میکند. ویژگیِ جالبِ کتاب این است که خودِ متنِ کتاب های ویتگنشتاین را هم آورده و خواننده بعداً راحت تر با کتاب های او مواجه می شود.

[Phillip · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of the better titles of this series.

[Mitch · Rating 1 out of 5]

A few funny anecdotes about Wittgenstein’s spectacularly dysfunctional mannerisms (even by the standards of geniuses) but other than that I’m not any wiser about what his philosophy did or why it’s important.

This is a biography.

[Paulo Eduardo Rocha de Jesus Santos · Rating 5 out of 5]

esse Wittgenstein é maluco!!
"sobre aquilo de que não se pode falar, deve-se calar."

[James Woodruff · Rating 2 out of 5]

Silly little book. Read on a whim. Dogwater prose but in a technical sense not a terrible intro to Witt if you’re curious.

[Jack Waters · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's fine, but doesn't delve enough into the philosophy as Strathern does in other volumes in this series. I get the compulsion to talk more about his biography because Wittgenstein was an iconoclastic whiny genius diva, but that can be found in a more appealing way in the wonderful graphic novel Logicomix.

[Micah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read - Nov 2015

Reread July 2022


Lots of quickly illuminated info on the life and times of Wittgenstein here, but Strathern can barely write a sentence that doesn't appear to seethe with animosity toward Wittgenstein. It really sucks to get an insightful little biographical piece from someone who quotes and then misinterprets his subject on the same page, seemingly intentionally. Constantly calling the subject "arrogant" and discussing how greatly he ruined all of his friends lives doesn't seem quite like an honest, even take. It seems Strathern's thesis here is something like "Why I wish Wittgenstein had never met Russell."

After rereading, I don’t have many differing thoughts or much to add. Wittgenstein himself said one shouldn’t investigate his ideas without a desire to understand them. Philosophy has mutated into a disciple of picking other personalities apart and his ideas were typically offered in a format intentionally poetic and austere, logical and linguistically hyper self aware. This version of Wittgenstein reads like a tabloid rag expose on the secret personal life and ugly disposition of a man who is unavoidably principled, engaging, and spiritually engaged. It is a tragedy that all anyone can focus on is unverified hearsay about his sexual proclivities.

[Tom Morris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strathern paints a wonderful portrait of Wittgenstein's early years and on a biographical level manages to show Wittgenstein in a realistic light: his flaws and failings.

The book's coverage of Wittgenstein's philosophy seems limited though: Strathern describes the Tractatus as an excellent work of philosophy and provides an adequate précis. For Philosophical Investigations, we get the brief remark that language is like a fishing net followed by the conclusion that it's all a load of boring linguistic nit-picking. You are presented with no further account of Philosophical Investigations, so those not acquainted with Wittgenstein are given no chance to evaluate the conclusion presented.

Given this, Strathern then concludes that all of philosophy is over - it has disappeared into dull, academic speculation rather than practical advice on the good life. This seems hasty: that boring contemporary stuff seems to satisfy plenty of undergraduates each year. Since Wittgenstein's death, philosophy seems to be flourishing.

For a less polemical but equally concise take on Wittgenstein, try A. C. Grayling's book for the Oxford 'Very Short Introduction' series.