Poker

I finished Wittgenstein’s Poker  and I have more of an emotional feeling than an intellectual one.  I am sad.  You have two geniuses (in a group of other geniuses), Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein.  Both men are tortured by their memories, scarred by their families and the Nazi takeover of their homes, and a bit crazy.  Both come from the same homeland, displaced and lonely.  But he difference between them, aside from their philosophical views, is that Popper spent his entire life saying “look at me”., I am smart, funny and all important” , while Wittgenstein was more, “I do not need your approval, for I know I am smarter than all of you”.  Popper wanted more than anything to be like Wittgenstein, but could not.  That is the crux of the book.

At the all important H3 meeting at Cambridge, whatever the real facts, as no one knows, Popper was speaking; Wittgenstein got angry, as he was known to do, brandished a hot poker and then walked out.  Popper selectively remembers the incident as he being so clever that Wittgenstein had met his match, abdicated his thrown by walking out, thereby winning some epic battle.  Wittgenstein barely remembered Popper at all.  Others who were there seemed to believe that Popper embellished the facts to look like some hero who had won some huge philosophical debate.  To me, Popper is a sad character.  He should have been comfortable in his own skin and not cared a lick about Wittgenstein.

Further, today, Popper is most only remembered in New Zealand where he taught.  Wittgenstein, on the other hand, is remembered all over.  This knowledge would probably kill Popper all over again and Wittgenstein would still call virtually all of us idiots.

Wittgenstein’s Poker was well written, informative and really drew the reader in on the small issue of brandishing a hot poker.  But the book, to me was more about how we are all affected by our family and friends and that we should be comfortable in our own skins and not look to the approval of others for our own happiness. 

Wittgenstein's Poker

I have a confession.  I am not done reading Wittgenstein’s Poker.  I have had the book for a couple of weeks and by all accounts I should be done.  The trouble is that after I have read a chapter, I re-read not only that chapter but one or two chapters before that, fearing that I missed an important point or failed to grasp a concept.  I find that I am not entirely wrong.  Each time I read the book, I come up with new ideas and questions, not only about Wittgenstein, Popper and those in their “circle”, but also the social climate at the time and the influence they had upon so many.  I cannot help but think about what would have happened in the philosophical world if Wittgenstein and Popper had been friends and worked together? Perhaps this is a childish thought, but I cannot help but think that each of these men would have benefited emotionally and intellectually from one another.  Or, perhaps, it is the fact that they were not friends that inspired them, consciously or not, to the greatness they achieved. ( I see now that these philosophers have had an influence on me!)

               What I did take from Wittgenstein’s is that the author’s touch on aspects of both Wittgenstein and Popper, makes assumptions based upon facts and information, but then refuse to elaborate, only to bring up the issues in later chapters, again, refusing to elaborate. This is a bit frustrating.  If the authors have something to say or conjecture, just say it and move on.  I chalk this up to the fact that the authors are British and enough said on that!  For example, the authors elude to the fact that Wittgenstein was suicidal, like his brothers and one of them who actually did commit suicide, but more than that, they state that he was likely homosexual. Whether, it was overt or " in the closet", whether that played a part in his personality or more importantly his philosophy, the authors refuse to take a position, only to put it out for conjecture.

               Popper, too, according to the authors had many issues, but the authors refuse to leap to the conclusion as to whether they affected his philosophies.  For example, he never kissed his wife on the lips, was an extreme workaholic whose wife was extremely depressed, and made a conscious decision not to have children.

               Wittgenstein was, as set forth in the book,  little published, revered, hated, but yet asked into every important intellectual social circle of the time.

               Popper was, as set forth in the book, disliked, argumentative, never asked in those social circles, but published extensively and quoted often.

               Wittgenstein’s influence was on philosophers and artists.

               Popper’s influence was on business politics and science.

               Other readers must share in my frustration.  Both Wittgenstein and Popper were from the same home town, geniuses in their field, hated, with personalities described as “bullying aggressive intolerant self absorbed”. Should, could or would they have been friends seems as much the beginnings of a philosophical debate as any other topic those wildly intelligent men debated.  Perhaps I should start my own “circle” and see where it goes.