Customer Reviews

Wittgensteins Poker

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Academic intrigue inside a jounalistic context -- not the most compatible or promising of bedfellows. Still and all, the book remains oddly entertaining despite inbuilt limitations. From the text, a smattering can be learned about the following: Anglo-Austrian philosophy, two of its most unpleasant luminaries, late Habsburg Vienna, rivalries at Cambridge, and last but not least, more than you may ever want to know about an obscure event from 1946. It's this latter that forms the book's centerpiece, and it's a testament to the authors' chutzpah that they are able to magnify this seemingly innocuous confrontation into a climactic and meaningful clash of intellects. Expectations build as the narrative meanders toward what really happened in room H-3, King's College, Cambridge, as two massive egos of the ivory tower, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper, at last collide. The actual upshot is a disappointment, and its meagreness can be taken as an ironical commentary on the elusive nature of Truth and Reality, an outcome not unbefitting a subject of this kind. Then too, the authors take liberties in filling out subjective detail, at the same time, neither the material nor the chapters cohere well despite the tenacity of purpose. Also, I agree with reviewer Walter Horn that Popper's reputation is inflated to approximate Wittgenstein's, without which much of the drama would dissipate. Nonetheless, the issue between the two remains a key one: Does traditional philosophy rest on anything other than linguistic confusion. Don't expect an answer or even a preference from the authors. All in all and despite the many drawbacks, the book stands as something of an oddball achievement, though it poses a genuine risk to those who care nothing about baldness and the dead king of France.

A meeting when two famous philosopher were drawn into a debate at Cambridge University's Moral Science Club in room H3 in which one of the Protaganists (Ludwig Wittgenstein) brandished a poker from the fireplace and waved it, in what may or may not have been, a threatening manner is the premise of this book. Edmonds and Eidinow try to contextualise this by means of a biography of both of these philosopers as well as a retelling of the then current change in analytic philosophy from a strictly epistemological to a linguistic emphasis. What philosophy there is in the book (and there is not much) is described well and succinctly. The overriding motif of the book is (to my reading) how unbelievably childish both these men were (particularly Wittgenstein).

Wittgenstein's Poker is not going to break new ground in philosophical understanding, it is the non-fiction equivalent of a Catherine Cookson or Celine Deon; it is, however, a charming and funny book. Hence if you are soon taking a long train journey or the like and consider Descarte's Philosophical Meditations too taxing then Wittgenstein's poker is the book for you. Any book that can quote the following from Bertrand Russell as part of a serious point is worthy of a purchase!:

"I used to go there [England's South Coast]
alone to watch the sunset and contemplate
suicide. I did not, however, commit suicide,
because I wished toknow more about Mathematics" (p175)

You would not think that it was possible to write a book for the general reader about a ten minute argument between two little known mid-twentieth century philosophers and have it be a best seller. This book proves that belief to be very wrong.

The confrontation between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Carl Popper in October of 1946 is a minor footnote in the history of philosophy, but it provides a foil for the authors to explore the histories of these two men and the world in which they lived.

After setting the stage by describing the confrontation, the authors turn to an examination of the lives of the two philosophers, both from Vienna, both powerful intellects, both giant egos. The emphasis here is on historical context, not on philosophy, so the story is very accessible to the general reader. The account of their lives before World War II is fascinating. The description of the academic world in which they worked is vividly drawn.

The authors have given us a real sense of who these two men were and have introduced the reader to the supporting cast of characters as well. The authors have wisely avoid an analysis of the sexual lives of the two protagonists, though Wittgenstein's personal life is alluded to at a couple of points.

The philosophical issues are presented late in the book and are explained carefully and simply, so that the lay reader will see the intellecual stakes involved in the argument. While both men are presented as driven, they are sympathetically portrayed and within the context of the lives they lived, seem quite compelling.

This book captured for me the feeling of being there and gave me a real sense of time and place. The book is short but compelling. I recommend it highly for the reader interested in the lives of intellectuals mid Twentieth Century.

As much as I was enjoying this book, about two thirds of the way through I decided it was real trash. Then I came to the philosophical part and my opinion changed significantly. This is what I had been going to say in my review:

When an abstruse issue in science captures the public imagination it is often considered a good idea to make it more accessible by writing about the personalities involved. This 'humanizes' the issue, in other words replaces actual scientific knowledge (which is technical and hard to understand)with gossip. "Wittgenstein's Poker" takes this approach to philosophy. It is about a debate between two of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century (Wittgenstein and Popper)on the subject of whether philosophers deal with problems or merely puzzles. The authors do not take sides explicitly, but whenever they refer to a philosophical issue or idea they state it very briefly and give no indication at all as to why anyone should care about such an apparently trivial matter or bother with such banal or (seemingly) obviously false ideas. Philosophy, we are led to believe, is a complete waste of time. And philosophers are losers. Wittgenstein is presented as a callous weirdo, Popper as a resentful egomaniac. The entire philosophy faculty of Cambridge University in 1946 is also written off. If ever anyone had an unkind word to say about these men then it is quoted here, with little or nothing to offset it by way of praise or even neutral description. You can see why the book is fun to read. But it's a little odd in a book aimed presumably at those with an interest in philosphy. Or perhaps it's not so odd. Maybe pseudo-intellectuals want nothing more than an invitation to sneer at the real intelligentsia. That's what I had been going to write.

But then I came to the chapter that actually explains some of the issues (induction, probability, etc.) that concerned Popper and Bertrand Russell, and what they thought about them. This was interesting and well done. There is some real meat here for those unfamiliar with philosophy, albeit a cutlet rather than a roast. You won't learn much about Wittgenstein, though, except about his life and personality. Why anyone should care exactly what happened with the poker is beyond me, but this is a fun book and might even be an effective introduction to philosophy for some people.

To often in philosophy, we forget the personalities. This book may not break much new ground concerning the fateful encounter between Popper and Wittgenstein, but it is a delightful synoptic account of the time, issues at stake, and the players.

A joy ride for any one interested in philosophy in the twentieth century. I found the events circumscribed as accessible and level headed. What was seminal is authenticated wistfully. Moreover, the passionate thinkers, Wittgenstein and Popper, are delt with in depth.

Edmonds' and Eidinow's historical snapshot of early twentieth-century philosophy is very journalistic in style (not surprisingly, since they are both professional newsmen). And they have followed the beat well: just about all the important details of how such a diverse group of philosophers ended up in the same Cambridge room on that famous day are there. The problem is, the uncertain details of the controversy itself have already been beaten to death in the London Review of Books. This book adds no new evidence one way or another as to what actually happened with Wittgenstein, Popper, Russell, and the infamous poker.

It is an entertaining read for those of us who enjoy the trivia of the whole situation -- the language is exceptionally clear, with plenty of high-brow humour -- but for everyone else this book is probably a bore. Had the authors steered away from the poker and focused more on the philosophies themselves, this book may have been a very decent investigation of a most fascinating period in the history of philosophy. Then again, I'm no Wittgenstein.

All the good things about this book have been said many times: basically, that it makes the world of philosophers accessible to a broader audience. It acomplishes this though a kind of fractured, extended reconstruction of an argument between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper in 1946. It's a brilliant idea that, in the hands of Edmonds and Eidinow, delivers an incredible amount of information.

That being said, the very method of the book prevents Edmonds and Eidinow from getting to the nub of the issue. Their approach singles out the poker incident, and tries to determine its truthfulness. What's important about the incident is not whether Wittrgenstein threatened Popper with a poker; it's why this story gained such a wide audience within the community of philosophers. If the authors would have seen it as a parable (as most embellished history becomes), it becomes much clearer and truer.

As a parable then, Wittgnestein's and Popper's argument is not about their philosophy per se, but about philosophy as a way to act in the world. Wittgenstein's puzzles approach is amoral and contingent; Popper's historical reconstruction, moral and urgent. Within the story, Popper asks a question that unmasks Wittgenstein's contingent action as a physical threat, giving the lie to Wittgenstein's position and tying his action to the recent violence of WWII and the Holocaust. It's a cautionary tale about the outcome not only of an argument but of the argument of philosophy itself.

Edmonds and Eidinow DO make vast stretches of 20th century philosophy accessible. But it's always as if to say: "Hey, this academic infighting thing is actually really important." Because they concentrate on the incident as a way to discuss philosophy and philosophers, they miss how crucial philosophy had become to the world outside of Cambridge and Oxford. In particular, the authors never seem to grasp that the entire planet was engaged in one of the greatest and most complex philosophical struggles of human history: The Cold War.

Because they can't seem to see this larger historical context, they miss Popper's crucial participation in the conflict: shifting the central theme of the struggle away from class inequality and toward what he saw as the evils of totaliarianism. In one sense, Popper delivered the English and American working classes to the Western democracies at a time when capitalism couldn't deliver enough bread or sugar or heating oil. That's the true power of ideas--to set our minds on a course that is both physically and politically difficult. Popper and Wittgenstein both understood this power. For all their dilligent research and good intentions, I never got the feeling that Edmonds and Eidinow did.

This book starts out gossipy; then somewhere halfway through, it takes you through difficult philosophical issues that Wittgenstein pondered in his life, but in a way that's
readable.

Also: shocking details of the way he treated people, and how we are to make sense of this being the same man who wrote, Philosophical Investigations, the Blue and Brown Books, et. al., which are cool, calm and ground-breaking,
in philosophy and across the board. Really good read.

The book provides a lot of biographical information about Wittgenstein, Popper,Russell and a whole host of other people associated with the event. However, it glosses over their ideas and only presents them as compared/contrasted to the movements with which they were associated.

The history leading up to the meeting is interesting but is presented in a somewhat scattered way. And while it does give a a great deal of insight into the personalities of these men, it never really gets into the philosphy too deep. In that sense, it reads like an A&E biography. An intriguing bit of fluff.