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

David Edmonds (Author), John Eidinow (Author)

Book Description

Release date: September 17, 2002

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.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In October 1946, philosopher Karl Popper arrived at Cambridge to lecture at a seminar hosted by his legendary colleague Ludwig Wittgenstein. It did not go well: the men began arguing, and eventually, Wittgenstein began waving a fire poker toward Popper. It lasted scarcely 10 minutes, yet the debate has turned into perhaps modern philosophy's most contentious encounter, largely because none of the eyewitnesses could agree on what happened. Did Wittgenstein physically threaten Popper with the poker? Did Popper lie about it afterward? BBC journalists Edmonds and Eidinow use the controversy as a springboard to probe the whys and whats of these two great thinkers, weaving biography, journalism and philosophy to produce one of the year's most entertaining and intellectually rich books. The authors show that the debate was a clash at several levels. First, of personalities: each was "bullying, aggressive, intolerant and self-absorbed"; in other words, accustomed to winning and unlikely to back down. Second, of class: Wittgenstein was an Austrian aristocrat, Popper was bourgeoisie (each fled Vienna to escape Hitler). And third, of ideas: Wittgenstein believed that philosophy boiled down to nothing more than a series of linguistic puzzles, while Popper thought philosophy involved real problems that immediately affected the world at large. Clearly, the stakes were high for both men in that lecture hall especially because their common mentor, the aging icon Bertrand Russell, was also in attendance. The debate thus took on the character of a succession for the throne. Tightly constructed and extraordinarily well written, this is a marvelous blend of lay and academic scholarship. It has every chance of becoming a classic of its kind. (Nov.)Forecast: Smart, general readers will gobble up this latest addition to narrative nonfiction. It will surely find a place for itself among The Professor and the Madman and An Eternal Golden Braid.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist

*Starred Review* Here is ivory-tower drama at its crackling best. On Cambridge University's campus in 1946, two of the twentieth century's most notable philosophers, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper, squared off in an intense 10-minute exchange rumored to have led to Wittgenstein brandishing a red-hot poker. What actually happened in this now-legendary clash, and how it reflects the development of philosophy and the times, is what Edmonds and Eidinow set out to discover. Wittgenstein came to the encounter with a reputation as a "charismatic genius." Popper, by contrast, presented a mundane picture, his academic life falling in the shadow of Wittgenstein, whose views on philosophy he fiercely derided. Both men were of Jewish extraction, displaced from Austria by the Nazi takeover. But Wittgenstein's wealth had allowed him freedoms denied the more middle class Popper. Feelings from all these myriad gulfs spilled over into the Cambridge encounter. The authors' profiling of the audience, which included Bertrand Russell, further illuminates what stoked the philosophical fires that day. Moving quickly from one brief chapter to another, Edmonds and Eidinow bring rich interpretation to the extraordinary incident, a BBC documentary on which is in the making. Philip Herbst
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: Harper Perennial; Reprint edition (September 17, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0060936649
• ISBN-13: 978-0060936648
• Product Dimensions: 7.3 x 5.3 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (105 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #282,338 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 23 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Can Stories Of Fencing Philosophers Be Falsified? February 17, 2002

By Bruce Crocker

Format:Hardcover

Wittgenstein's Poker by Dave Edmonds & John Eidinow, a distant cousin to The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menand, is a good book, but not a great book. The book is a parallel biography of two of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. The book starts with the one meeting between the two philosophers, which ended with Wittgenstein wielding a fire poker at Popper. I was originally going to give the book a full 5 stars, but I feel the ending let me down. I was expecting the authors to tie all the disparate threads followed in the book together better than they did, but was disappointed when the book just whimpered to an end, especially after such a clever beginning. I would still recommend the book to folks interested in philosophy, Wittgenstein, Popper, and the history of the first half of the 20th Century. If I could, I'd give the book a 4.4 stars. ...

27 of 31 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Good but unsatisfying January 14, 2002

By suspectre

Format:Hardcover

This was a fun read and I devoured it in about three days. It provided fascinating biographical and historical details and it was decent overview of the philosophical issues of the time. Yet I came away feeling a little short-changed. The book didn't offer a very clear view of Wittgenstein's philosophy, how he used it and how he applied it. The same perhaps could be said of the book's characterization of Popper but I knew much more about Popper coming in. Finally, the book never really provides a blow-by-blow account of the argument -- Popper said this, Wittgenstein responded with that, Popper replied thusly, and so on. It seems like that at least a speculative paraphrasing of the argument would have been possible given the research the authors did. I was disappointed they didn't even try. All I came away with was a general idea of what the argument was about -- philosophical problems versus puzzles -- and the atmosphere of the scene at Cambridge. I wanted more.

38 of 45 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars Entertaining but superficial February 5, 2002

By Dennis M. Clark

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

The authors present an entertaining overview of some of the more interesting people in 20th century philosophy, especially highlighting the way Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, and Ludwig Wittgenstein interacted. The background on Vienna is especially nice. However, this book is journalism, not philosophy, even though the publisher's blurb claims that it is an engaging mix of "philosophy, history, biography, and literary detection". None of the major philosophical problems, positions, or puzzles are presented in any depth; usually the authors hop to the next topic just as the material is getting challenging, rather than trying to engage the reader in something intellectually satisfying. They even present us with an example of the technical logical notation of Bertrand Russell (again, just as it's starting to get good) but then offer no explanation of the elements of the example, leaving the reader wondering why they bothered to show it, as if expecting a "Gee, whiz" reaction but no interest in knowing more.

There are also some curious passages where the authors make some remarkable assertions with no substantiation for them. For example, on page 239, they state that "Capitalism has not led to a greater concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands." They are very vague about whether they are contesting that capitalism has caused this situation (defensible) or whether they think that this has not actually happened (incredible). To make it worse, it's hard to tell whether Popper is making the assertion or the authors. Such vagueness is hardly philosophy.

Page 291 has some writing which is more typical of a television documentary than a serious book.... Evaluating Popper, the authors state that "Many of the political 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." Oh, really? "If a resurgence of communism, fascism, aggressive nationalism, or religious fundamentalism once again threatened the international order..." If? What can they possibly mean by "If"? While one could argue that communism is hardly resurgent, I can only wonder which planet of which star system contains an international order free of the other stresses listed here. The authors idealistically describe a utopian vision that is hard to reconcile with today's world, seeming to conclude that Popper was after all a tremendous influence on world peace. I don't think so.

An amusing read, but you'll need to turn elsewhere for philosophical writing. Read more ›

50 of 62 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Did Wittgenstein threaten Popper with a fireplace poker? June 26, 2001

By Bret Pettichord

Format:Hardcover

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.

9 of 9 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Philosophy as a Zero-Sum Game July 25, 2002

By James R. Mccall

Format:Hardcover

Karl Popper, the distinguished philosopher of science, and Ludwig Wittgenstein met only once, for perhaps ten minutes, in a tense confrontation over their diametrically-opposed views of what philosophy was for. Always excitable, Wittgenstein brandished a poker, then put it down. Soon he left the room. Did he threaten Popper with the poker? Did he storm out of the room in response to a clever quip of Popper's? Eyewitness accounts vary.

"There was a delightful irony in the conflicting testimonies. They had arisen between people all professionally concerned with theories of epistemology..., understanding, and truth. Yet they concerned a sequence of events where those who disagreed were eyewitnesses on crucial questions of fact."(p4)

The authors use this rather well-known (to academic philosophers) but murky incident as a focus for a book that takes us back to the Vienna of the Hapsburgs, where the extremely wealthy Wittgensteins moved in the highest echelons of culture and social life, and the more modest Poppers also enjoyed the wide and deep intellectual life of this city of coffeehouses and tolerance. Later (but before the storm) there was the Vienna Circle, which courted Wittgenstein and excluded Popper. (Or did he exclude himself?)

This is a book about two great men who were both Viennese, intense, egotistical, brilliant, and contentious to a degree rarely seen. To each, every discussion bearing on philosophy became a contest that each had to win, and almost invariably did. Ironically, they never met until that night in 1946, in Cambridge, England, of all places. So it is also a book about philosophy in the 20th century that brings in G.E.... Moore and Bertrand Russell (who was there that night), Moritz Schlick (the founder of the Vienna Circle), Rudolph Carnap, Stephen Toulmin, and a host of smaller fry.

The writing is fast-paced, as befits two journalists, and the philosophy is mostly honored in the breach, as befits a popular history. Yet we get a good feel for the issues in play on that night in Cambridge. Those of you who have struggled with Wittgenstein will find nothing here to change your view of him as a charismatic genius (but possibly totally wrong!), but the less-well-known Popper emerges as a driven man that had to win on this most esoteric of playing fields. What impressed me most about this tale was that for these men philosophy was not redemptive or illuminating. They seemed not "philosophical" in the old Socratic sense, but possessed by skewed needs that this strange cloistered university atmosphere salved, because they could show their strange skills to advantage here. Anyway, this is a delightful look at an intellectual milieu that is mostly gone, but was wonderful and strange while it lasted. Read more ›