Wittgenstein's Poker

Wittgenstein's Poker is a mini biography of the lives of Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein leading up to their one and only meeting at the Cambridge moral science club in October 1946 where their loud and aggressive confrontation became the stuff of legend. What happened? Why did the two great philosophers behave as they did? What did Popper have against Wittgenstein? At stake was the meaning and direction of the analytic revolution--which had been led by Bertrand Russell --and, ultimately, the purpose of philosophy itself.

Edmonds and Eidinow's treatment is a very clever and interesting way to introduce the history of philosophy in the first third of the 20th century. The 10 minute argument provides an effective and fascinating organising focus for the whole book--not only because one is curious to find out who said what and why--but because to understand what really happened involves finding out what kind of men these great philosophers were, and how they stood to the philosophic tradition. Popper's opposition to Wittgenstein however, was more than just a difference in philosophic views; on a deeper level Wittgenstein represented the Vienna that had been out of reach even to the son of a respected and socially responsible lawyer: "In Wittgenstein he saw the imperial city where riches and status commanded respect and opened doors, the separate territory where inflation-wrought poverty had no place and the Nazis could be bought off."

It is the social and political background of the story, the class differences, as well as the philosophic differences between the two great philosophers which makes this book so unusual and interesting. Part biography, part social history, part history of philosophy Wittgenstein's Poker is informative, entertaining and accessible. --Larry Brown

View other editions of Wittgenstein's Poker.
View books by David Edmonds, John Eidinow.

three philosphers in a room. - Rated
A glorious book, if you are interested in history, encompassing Vienna under the Austrian-Hungarian empire, Hitler's Jewish pogrom, Cambridge University, Bertrand Russell,Karl Popper, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, Guy's Hospital pharmacy, a story of philosophical ideas, and arguments thereof, and future academics' remembrance of the poker incident. Fascinating.

Utterly fascinating--but why? - Rated
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.

Informative and amusing - Rated
This book pretends to be the story of a ten minute argument that took place at Cambridge University in 1946 between two giants of twentieth century philosophy: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. Of course, at 300+ pages the book has to be more than that, and Edmonds and Eidenow brilliantly flesh out the early careers of these two philosophers, dealing with what united them (chiefly their backgrounds in late Habsburg Vienna) as well as their very different experiences of the Nazi anti-Jewish programme.

I had never heard of Karl Popper before I read this book, and what I knew about Wittgenstein I could have scratched on the back of an aspirin, so this was an informative read and an engaging introduction to the two men's thinking.

Worth a read - Rated
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 to know more about Mathematics" (p175)

Deeply disappointing - Rated
I bought this book with some eagerness, as both a Wittgenstein aficionado and an erstwhile employee of a Soros institution. I very much enjoyed the character profiling of both Popper and Wittgenstein, but if the underlying purpose of the book was to show how their respective backgrounds shed light on the incidents of room H3, then I have to say that it has failed. All of the known accounts of and information concerning the poker incident are included in the first chapter or so. What follows is entertaining if not structured and in no way backs up the pure surmise of the authors in the final chapter. As a number of interesting but unrelated points the books has some merit but it is not a successful construction of a case. The last chapter veers excessively into the novelistic and many of the preceding chapters really give us nothing as to the pattern or significance of events in the poker room. Perhaps if the book had been organised differently - for example, chronologically, with the first chapter at the end - it would have been less entertaining but certainly a more rigorous read.