The Return of Zines

Hello , my faithful public readers! I have come back from a long a fruitful summer vacation feeling relaxed and refreshed, but more importantly ready to take on my senior year of high school. Starting this year off right, I will be making new "Zines" for the school to read. I will keep the theme and pieces a secret, but I will tell you this, my theme is on every seniors mind, and are probably stressing this subject every single day. This year I wow to work harder and to make my name known among the Herricks students. How? I do not know yet but I will let you know......

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.

Book

As I continue to read Wittgenstein's Poker, I wonder, why does anyone care 
about what happened along time ago, in England, in a small room, when a few 
philosophers had a tiff, huffed off, and, basically whatever. I had no answer to 
this " philosophical question" until I started to get into the backgrounds of 
Wittgenstein and Popper. Both, Austrian Jews during the Nazi takeover, both 
having similar friends and business associates, both living in the same area, 
both so different, but both so deeply affected by their early lives that it 
impacted their way of thinking and their star crossed relationship forever.  
Wittgenstein, born into an incomprehensibly wealth Jewish family, who converted 
for assimilation into the Viennese society, was, to cut to the chase, a true 
genius, but truly " disturbed".  He could not find happiness or contentment, 
despite giving his vast sums to his sisters and teaching underprivileged kids.  
Then there was Popper.  His family was also Jewish, his father a lawyer, and 
comfortable, in many of the social circles as Wittgenstein, but never as rich or 
connected. 
No one can claim that Popper was unintelligent by any means, but, he was like 
the step child of the Wittgenstein's.  His family and he not as rich, 
intelligent, connected or special, but a player nonetheless.  
Wittgenstein and Popper were also extremely fortunate that they and their family 
were able to escape the death camps due to money, connections, luck and denial 
of heritage. 
I think, on some level, this denunciation of who they were ( Jewish) weighed on 
them. A conscious choice to change religion based on ones personal beliefs is 
quite different than changing to assimilate, fit in, be accepted, or, 
ultimately, not be persecuted or exterminated under Hitler's rule. 
Popper seemed to be an intelligent, deep thinker, but not nearly to the level of 
Wittgenstein.  Wittgenstein, aside from all the  money and connections, was a 
tortured genius, able to think on levels that Popper could only dream of. 
Wittgenstein had seemingly effortless ability to command a room and concept 
while Popper had a hard time getting people to listen or respect him (although 
he was quite respectable and intelligent) . 

Book

I always thought I liked philosophy ..... Or do I? What is philosophy and what 
not is philosophy? Based upon these ideas, I can blog about Wittgenstein poker 
in numerous ways.  I can write about this book and the ideas contained therein 
in such a ways as to sound really intelligent but leave the reader saying (if 
they were brave enough) "what?" I can also profess not to really get the point 
of the book except that there were great philosophers with mega ego issues and 
major emotionally problems who disagreed with each other, except when they did 
not. Perhaps I can do both? Perhaps I can do neither? Perhaps the best idea, in 
keeping with the tradition of philosophy, is to ask what you, the reader thinks, 
and then disagree, except when I am agreeing.
I guess I have learned something from this book, or have I?

Fish

The question that I have is simply, when do you tell a kid that their pet 
Goldfish has died. We have all been there. You go to the to carnival and win the 
holy grail of prizes- the elusive gold fish! Never mind that you spent $5.00 on 
ping pong balls to throw them into a tiny glass bowl, set apart in such a way as 
to have the ball bounce onto the ground, to win a .15 fish. You win the prize 
and you are happy. Forget that now you have to go out and get a bowl, gravel, 
ornaments and food. You are too thrilled to worry about that! So now you have 
spent around $30 on your .15 prize. Your fish, now named, " fish" or "dog" or 
something like that is now part of your family. You go off to school and come 
home to say hello to your new friend, but wait, "fido" looks different. You are 
positive he was bigger or she was smaller.

Time passes and so do many "sushi's", all without your knowledge, and you are ok 
with that.

For me, I now understand that concept.  I was put in that position recently when 
my sister's fish died. I was faced with the choice of telling her that her pet 
was never coming back and having to explain where it went, or, going to the pet 
store and replacing "Tuna". The choice was simple- I am a coward.  "Veronica" 
was happily swimming around in the bowl and the question of doesn't he look 
different was answered with, " uh, nope".  

Maybe next time I will be honest, or maybe the time after that because there is 
always time to grow up. Not today, however.

Poker Stick

Did the poker stick even exist in the first place?

I read the first few chapters of Wittgenstein's Poker by David Edmonds and John 
Eidinow.  I have to say that at this point, I am not sure what to say, except I 
am intrigued.

Basically, there was a man named Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was one of the 
greatest minds of all times, mostly known for philosophy, and Karl Popper, also 
a philosopher, who was always in Wittgenstein's shadow.  

On a day that will "live in infamy" ( in the philosophical world I kid you not), 
specifically, October 25, 1946, in a small, crowded room at Cambridge 
University, these two men met, argued, a hot poker stick was bandied about and 
feelings and egos got bruised.  Wittgenstein subsequently died, and the authors 
tracked down all the eye witnesses to the "poker meeting" as they could to write 
this book of the account of that night. 
 
The authors, with little doubt, will delve into the lives of Wittgenstein and 
Popper.  The readers will likely see how these two men have changed our lives 
through their deep thoughts.  I also imagine that we will learn about their past 
and given their age, how the Nazi's deeply effected them.