Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

David Edmonds and John Eidinow

Wittgenstein's Poker

W (who has been fidgeting with the poker) asks for an example of a moral rule. P replies 'Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers', at which W storms out. In Wittgenstein's Poker Edmonds and Eidinow explain that it probably didn't happen quite that way. But this book is far more than just a discussion of a 10 minute incident involving Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein in Cambridge in 1946. Rather it gives a critical look at the lives of the two philosophers, including their upbringings (both came from Jewish families in Vienna, and so both were faced with the problems of the rise of Hitler), their points of view, and how they interacted with those around them.

Sometimes, I have to say, I wondered what the point of this book was. It isn't really a 'learn philosophy via biography' sort of a book. And if the question is whether individual incidents such as this particularly matter in the development of philosophy, well the impression I got was that no, they don't, in which case the authors seem to be sawing off the branch on which they are sitting. But it was a thought provoking book. For example, why does someone become a professional philosopher, rather than a cabinet maker (which Popper was for a while) who just likes to think about things. If such questions interest you then you should have a look at this book.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 352 pages
ISBN: 0060936649
Salesrank: 82079
Weight:0.6 lbs

Published: 2002 Harper Perennial

Amazon price $11.16

Marketplace:New from $4.46:Used from $2.40

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 267 pages
ISBN: 057120547X
Salesrank: 173554
Weight:1.01 lbs

Published: 2001 Faber and Faber

Marketplace::Used from £3.39

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 267 pages
ISBN: 057120547X
Salesrank: 270606
Weight:1.01 lbs

Published: 2001 Faber And Faber Ltd.

Marketplace::Used from CDN$ 30.78

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
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.

Product Description

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.

Amusing and interesting poking ***
The authors are poking about in a mostly interesting way, but for a philosopher the middle of the book containes a bit too much detailed information on what lies outside the story of the poker incident and the philosophically interesting bits. However, in the end the threads are all gathered up nicely, and the book is safely recommended to those who find the personalities of great philosophers interesting.

Amusing and interesting poking ***

The authors are poking about in a mostly interesting way, but for a philosopher the middle of the book containes a bit too much detailed information on what lies outside the story of the poker incident and the philosophically interesting bits. However, in the end the threads are all gathered up nicely, and the book is safely recommended to those who find the personalities of great philosophers interesting.

Just Poking around ****
This is a fine read to get some sense of both Popper and Wittgenstein and the culture in which they grew up and then influenced. Written in accessible language- somewhat short on philosophy but keeps ones interest easily and is a good introduction to Wittgenstein from my perspective.

Just Poking around ****

This is a fine read to get some sense of both Popper and Wittgenstein and the culture in which they grew up and then influenced. Written in accessible language- somewhat short on philosophy but keeps ones interest easily and is a good introduction to Wittgenstein from my perspective.

Character studies, and the biography of an era ****
Ludgwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper are two of the most interesting figures in 20th century philosophy. Edmonds and Eidinow use a 1946 encounter as a launching point for profiles of the two and their philosophies. It is, of necessity in a book of this length, philosophy lite. What really happened in the encounter is portrayed as a minor mystery, but in the end the differing versions tell us enough about the participants to make the truth merely incidental. Highly recommended as an introduction to both philosophers (and their era).

Character studies, and the biography of an era ****

Ludgwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper are two of the most interesting figures in 20th century philosophy. Edmonds and Eidinow use a 1946 encounter as a launching point for profiles of the two and their philosophies. It is, of necessity in a book of this length, philosophy lite. What really happened in the encounter is portrayed as a minor mystery, but in the end the differing versions tell us enough about the participants to make the truth merely incidental. Highly recommended as an introduction to both philosophers (and their era).

Sturm und Drang ****
In the fall of 1946, the philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper had their only face-to-face encounter during an argument over the nature of the work of philosophers; the splenetic Wittgenstein used a poker from the fireplace to emphasize a point, left the room, and Popper made a sarcastic triumphal comment after he left about not waving pokers in the face of guests. This silly but revealing little contretemps is the basis for this little study of what led up to this encounter both in terms of the two famous men's remarkably similar backgrounds (they were both displaced Christianized Jews from Vienna working in England, and both were mentored by Bertrand Russell, who was also in the room) and in terms of currents in philosophy in the early twentieth century. The book is ingeniously worked out, and you do come away from it knowing some basic ideas about what both Popper and Wittgenstein represented to European philosophy and how they both ran up against Hitler's Anschluss. The downside of the text is that it forefronts the more gossipy side of this encounter and then only towards the end getting to the content of their ideas, so that if you don't much about Anglo-Austrian philosophy you're left a bit puzzled as to why this meeting mattered until the book ends. But it's short enough a read that that doesn't present too much of a problem. This is a lightweight book, but still stimulating and worth reading.

Sturm und Drang ****

In the fall of 1946, the philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper had their only face-to-face encounter during an argument over the nature of the work of philosophers; the splenetic Wittgenstein used a poker from the fireplace to emphasize a point, left the room, and Popper made a sarcastic triumphal comment after he left about not waving pokers in the face of guests. This silly but revealing little contretemps is the basis for this little study of what led up to this encounter both in terms of the two famous men's remarkably similar backgrounds (they were both displaced Christianized Jews from Vienna working in England, and both were mentored by Bertrand Russell, who was also in the room) and in terms of currents in philosophy in the early twentieth century.

The book is ingeniously worked out, and you do come away from it knowing some basic ideas about what both Popper and Wittgenstein represented to European philosophy and how they both ran up against Hitler's Anschluss. The downside of the text is that it forefronts the more gossipy side of this encounter and then only towards the end getting to the content of their ideas, so that if you don't much about Anglo-Austrian philosophy you're left a bit puzzled as to why this meeting mattered until the book ends. But it's short enough a read that that doesn't present too much of a problem. This is a lightweight book, but still stimulating and worth reading.

Excellent piece of research *****
Having read some of the reviewers before me, I ought to warn the reader the book is more about a research of the surrounding facts of the Popper/Wittgenstein confrontation than, as some of the naive reviewers seem to have expected, an in-depth account or opinion of the philosophy of both. The book is true to its nature and in that sense it is outstanding indeed. Seldom will anyone obtain, in one piece, such a detailed portrait of two of the most outstanding intellectuals of the XX th Century. It may be curious to ascertain that these men, despite being born and educated in Austria, came to expose their differences before the english speaking world, where political tolerance has been rooted for centuries. It is a gripping read and one that will make you re-live with passion the beautiful tradition of philosophical awe, love for logic and the un-ending quest in search for the truth.

Excellent piece of research *****

Having read some of the reviewers before me, I ought to warn the reader the book is more about a research of the surrounding facts of the Popper/Wittgenstein confrontation than, as some of the naive reviewers seem to have expected, an in-depth account or opinion of the philosophy of both.
The book is true to its nature and in that sense it is outstanding indeed. Seldom will anyone obtain, in one piece, such a detailed portrait of two of the most outstanding intellectuals of the XX th Century. It may be curious to ascertain that these men, despite being born and educated in Austria, came to expose their differences before the english speaking world, where political tolerance has been rooted for centuries.
It is a gripping read and one that will make you re-live with passion the beautiful tradition of philosophical awe, love for logic and the un-ending quest in search for the truth.

Utterly fascinating--but why? *****
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.

Utterly fascinating--but why? *****

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 ****
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.

Informative and amusing ****

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 ***
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)

Worth a read ***

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 **
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.

Deeply disappointing **

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.

More Than a Casual Interest in Philosophy Required ****
David Edmonds and John Eidinow have written an interesting book on widely varying views of two men that reached some type of conflict one evening in 1946. Exactly how intense the conflict was is still open to debate, with even the surviving participants offering to this day, versions of the event that differ. The antagonists were Dr. Karl Popper and Professor Ludwig Wittgenstein, and what were at stake were the life long beliefs of these men which had no common ground. The actual exchange was very brief, and really supplies the core around which the book is written. There are other familiar names that play roles like Bertrand Russell, and John Maynard Keynes. The Philosophy that is explored during this book is for those who already have acquired the taste for the topic. As with many forms of study at its very limits the ideas either become unintelligible to only a very few, or are hard to gain an interest in for the layperson. Wittgenstein pondered ideas like the following for his entire career, how is speaking aloud different from speaking to oneself? He compared the idea to writing 2+2 on clean paper versus writing 2+2 on dirty paper. Other questions are considered, if 2+2=5 in an adjoining room, and it has always been so, is it wrong when transferred to a room where 2+2=4, or reasonable to state that it was not wrong in the other room? There was a brief section when the idea of combining game theory and philosophy was discussed and an interesting puzzle offered. Two bachelors play instruments and live adjacent to one another. Further they like to play during their free time which happens to correspond. Unfortunately one plays classical piano and the other jazz trumpet, how should their playing time be organized to be fair to both? The answer of 17 days of one instrument for every 26 of the other was given as the answer. What was most frustrating was that no explanation of the solution was offered to the reader. I found the book very well written and very interesting, but at the same time I decided the questions that they ponder are generally not something that would hold my attention. Puzzles of language were explored like, "The King of France is bald." The sentence is coherent but since there is no King of France how can we comprehend the words at all? For the words arranged as "King is a bald France, or France bald is King a." appear as nonsense. So if you have not read about some of the men considered to be in the pantheon of philosophers this book is for you, whether you will enjoy it will be determined by how far your inquisitiveness can carry you if the subject is less than enticing.

More Than a Casual Interest in Philosophy Required ****

David Edmonds and John Eidinow have written an interesting book on widely varying views of two men that reached some type of conflict one evening in 1946. Exactly how intense the conflict was is still open to debate, with even the surviving participants offering to this day, versions of the event that differ. The antagonists were Dr. Karl Popper and Professor Ludwig Wittgenstein, and what were at stake were the life long beliefs of these men which had no common ground. The actual exchange was very brief, and really supplies the core around which the book is written. There are other familiar names that play roles like Bertrand Russell, and John Maynard Keynes.

The Philosophy that is explored during this book is for those who already have acquired the taste for the topic. As with many forms of study at its very limits the ideas either become unintelligible to only a very few, or are hard to gain an interest in for the layperson. Wittgenstein pondered ideas like the following for his entire career, how is speaking aloud different from speaking to oneself? He compared the idea to writing 2+2 on clean paper versus writing 2+2 on dirty paper. Other questions are considered, if 2+2=5 in an adjoining room, and it has always been so, is it wrong when transferred to a room where 2+2=4, or reasonable to state that it was not wrong in the other room?

There was a brief section when the idea of combining game theory and philosophy was discussed and an interesting puzzle offered. Two bachelors play instruments and live adjacent to one another. Further they like to play during their free time which happens to correspond. Unfortunately one plays classical piano and the other jazz trumpet, how should their playing time be organized to be fair to both? The answer of 17 days of one instrument for every 26 of the other was given as the answer. What was most frustrating was that no explanation of the solution was offered to the reader.

I found the book very well written and very interesting, but at the same time I decided the questions that they ponder are generally not something that would hold my attention. Puzzles of language were explored like, "The King of France is bald." The sentence is coherent but since there is no King of France how can we comprehend the words at all? For the words arranged as "King is a bald France, or France bald is King a." appear as nonsense.

So if you have not read about some of the men considered to be in the pantheon of philosophers this book is for you, whether you will enjoy it will be determined by how far your inquisitiveness can carry you if the subject is less than enticing.

Oddball Achievement ***
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.

Oddball Achievement ***

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.

Absolutely Charming *****
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.

Absolutely Charming *****

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.

Philosophy Lite ****
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.

Philosophy Lite ****

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.

Excellent Overview of a Famous Meeting *****
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.

Excellent Overview of a Famous Meeting *****

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.