Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers

The book is well-written. One small scenario was expanded into an entire book, which is a combination of history, biography, and philosophy, and it is awesome. Wittgenstein would have been an interesting man to meet, and his personality would probably have made him internet-famous nowadays. Karl Popper's story is like an envious drama against a rival that does not even know he exists. If you wanna know more about Wittgenstein and/or Popper as people, rather than just philosophers, then this book is the one to read.

XXXXX "Take a dispute fundamental to philosophy, for whose future both [exceptional] men felt personal responsibility; take the cultural, social, and political differences between [these two men]; take the obsession of one with the other, who is in turn totally self-absorbed; take their no-holds-barred style of communication; take their complex relationship with their father figure, Russell--throw all these into the caldron that was H3 and a major explosion seems to have been inevitable. The poker becomes only a fuse." The above is found near the end of this fascinating book authored by award-winning BBC journalists David Edmonds and John Eidinow. This book has been published in over a dozen languages. This book hinges on one small ambiguous bite-sized brouhaha that occurred in October 1946 in room H3 located in King's College (a part of Cambridge University in England). Two prominent names of 20TH century philosophy, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 to 1951) and Karl Popper (1902 to 1994) debated one another for the first and only time. (The debate was mediated by yet another prominent name in philosophy, Bertrand Russell {1872 to 1970}.) Their encounter lasted only ten minutes and, as you can surmise from the above quotation, did not go so well. Almost immediately, rumors began to spread globally and one version of the story suggested that these two had come to blows, armed with red-hot fireplace pokers. Be aware that this is not a philosophy book even though it does contain some philosophy. The poker incident is used as a starting point or "springboard" for investigating all of the important historical events particularly in Vienna and Cambridge that shaped this incident. In other words, this story is presented in a very roundabout way, circling back to the poker incident while examining all that needs to be taken into account in fully understanding what transpired. (Some readers may not like this roundabout approach.) As well, there is good and significant biographical detail given of Wittgenstein and Popper. One chapter is devoted to discussing Russell, "the third man" in this story. This is a well-written book that's engaging and accessible with some humorous spots---a delight to read even if you're a non-philosopher. I found that I learned a lot, painlessly, without even noticing. This is a surprisingly well-researched book. Information was gathered not just from books but from interviews & correspondence including eyewitnesses and those who knew one or both of these two philosophers. These people "gave their time to search their memories, offer their recollections and furnish us [the authors] with background information" and "invaluable help." Finally, there are more than twenty illustrations in the middle of this book in the form of black and white photographs or "plates." I found that these enhanced the book's readability and enjoyment. In conclusion, the authors of this book "make the meeting of Popper and Wittgenst

Dealing with technicalities and fine points mainly of interest to the world of professional academic (and specifically Western) philsophers, this book takes us back to a peculiar incident at Cambridge, England immediately after World War II, when the mystifying analytic philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein met the combative and aggressive Karl Popper, both Viennese expatriots adrift in the aftermath of the century's European convulsions. Both men were accustomed to making waves among their peers, both had reputations for innovative thought which broke new ground, and both had legions of followers and disciples. Wittgenstein, the older and more established of the two, was on his home turf (though, as always, ill at ease in the milieu he had claimed for his own) whereas Popper was something of an outsider, as he had been all his life. Popper apparently went to this philosophical tryst with the intention of overturning Wittgenstein's claim to being the gris eminence of the philosophical world and in order to replace Wittgenstein's vision with his own as the main philosophical theme around which others might rally or debate. He had, he felt, previously done just this with the so-called Vienna Circle's logical postivism which, as a philosophy, had developed under the spell of the early Wittgenstein. So Popper was looking for a reprise of his earlier success, but on a grander scale, as he matched himself up against the thinker who had been the logical positivists' idol. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, seems to have been distracted by personal issues at the time. Overall, this is a marvelous book in the background and insights it offers concerning the two combatants, and those who surrounded them. A little light on the philosophical issues, to be sure, it also takes some liberties when it purports to get us into the heads of the protagonists in the events immediately leading up to and following the encounter. Nor does it offer any real revelation as to who really did what to whom. But, as others here have noted, it is fascinating to try to reconstruct the story, based on eyewitness and near witness accounts in light of the philosophical questions these men were concerned with: what can we know and how can we know it? More, it shows us the very human sides of both men. Like all of us, I suppose, they were not always entirely likable. For my part, I found the comparisons of the Wittgensteinian and Popperian viewpoints quite edifying and that, by itself, made the read worthwhile for me. If this stuff interests you, as well, then go for it. A fine book. -- SWM

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.

Compare it to the famous debate on evolution at the British Association meeting in Oxford in 1860 between Darwinists and their opponents like the palaeontologist Robert Owen and Bishop 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce. There, T.H.Huxley ('Darwin's Bulldog') baldly stated that he would rather be descended from an ape than from a Bishop who made specious and rediculous arguments. This sally (very daring in 1860!) won the crowd, and established Huxley as the hero who had vanquished the foe and established the hegemony of Darwinism, agnosticism and science over intellectual life. Except that more recent investigation has found the truth to be a little different. Huxley's speech, besides the 'ape/ Bishop' riposte, was not particularly convincing, and at least one Darwinist was heard to say afterwards 'The Bishop got the best of it'. The really forceful speaker who established the Evolution argument at Oxford was Darwin's friend, the botanist Thomas Hooker. What does this tell us about the subject of this book? That myth is established in memory of what we wish had happened. Because of Huxley's smart retort, then he had to be the hero, and Hooker was forgotten. According to Edmonds and Eidenow, Popper in his memoirs cast himself in the Huxley role, witty riposte and all. But for the memory of one man (Peter Geach, who wrote to the TLS on the matter), we might still live with this particular myth. The intellectual road to Room H3 is well explored in this book, managing to take in the key philosophical threads of the early part of the century - mainly the shift from epistemology to logic, and the focus on language established by Wittgenstein. Both men are well portrayed as forceful, agressive and (it has to be said) unpleasant debaters. To me, a long-time admirer of Popper, he does comes across with the more attractive human side - he had many close friends who loved him dearly. Wittgenstein seemed to only have disciples, and one feels that the wild exterior somehow went all the way to the core of the man. What you saw was what you got.One can see that one of the things Popper reacted to was Wittgenstein's prophetic aura and oracular utterances - Popper despised intellectual 'authorities' (except perhaps himself) and deliberately tried to 'down' his opponent. One remark which was not quoted was Rudolf Carnap: "I have learned that the distance funtion is not symmetrical. The distance from me to Popper is much less than the distance from Popper to me.'The authors have produced a tour-de-force which I highly recommend to anyone who is even vaguely interested in philosophy or the history of ideas. My one quibble is: was this as critical to the state of philosophy as the authors make out? Certainly it was not as critical to history or science generally as the BA 1860 debate. Popper may have thought so, but the authors show that the explosive meeting had little effect on the reputations of either man. It is quite amusing that some people purchased this book in expectat

Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper were two leading philosophers from Vienna who settled in England after WWII. Both were fringe members of the Vienna Circle, but they only met once, in Cambridge. Wittgenstein held the chair in philosophy. Popper, a professor at London, had been invited to speak. An argument quickly broke out that later had philosophers around the world wondering whether Wittgenstein had threatened Popper with a fireplace poker. This book takes the event as a springboard for an investigation into the backgrounds of these two men and the philosphical, Viennese and Jewish cultures that they grew up in. The authors give a compelling description of a time when philosophical disagreements were worth fighting over. What really happened in that room in that room in Cambridge? Why was Wittgenstein so angry? And did Popper lie about the events in his autobiography? If so, what does this say about the role of truth in his philosopy? I should confess that i've been an avid student of Wittgenstein's writings, as well a student of Popper's work. Nonetheless, i think this book would be accessable and enjoyable by anyone interested in learning more about these great philosophers.