I have been naughty and I have re-read the “Wittgenstein’s Poker” book by David Edmonds and John Eidinow for the third time, and my Hume book keeps staring at me. But I find the book endlessly fascinating.
I do keep thinking - do the authors exaggerate the importance of the Wittgenstein vs Popper bust-up? There is one basic reason, in terms of the big scheme of things - analytic philosophy was hardly going to change overnight because of Popper’s criticisms. Many people probably criticised analytic philosophy. I think it shows ignorance of how the educational system works - the philosophic doctrines are managed by the people in the chairs. It should be obvious.
Perhaps the book does show one thing - I think Wittgenstein completely lost his marbles. Even though I do not share most people’s worship of Wittgenstein, I have to feel sorry for someone like that. Or was he just an arrogant so-and-so?
I have to say that my opinion of philosophy is lower in general after reading the book. The poker fiasco, to me, shows me one thing - people treated Wittgenstein like a prophet. I actually find it all disturbing. Perhaps philosophy is not so far from theology after all?
i cannot speak for the book, but i find this debate to be a non-starter.
popper and the vienna circle were not trying to destroy analytical philosophy, but the idea as i understood it was to separate out “scientific fact” in social science from normative philosophy in social science.
to this day, to me, its as simple as the differnce between getting a BA and a BS degree. if you want more stats, and logic, and in the end wish to explore more limited subject in more detail - get a BS.
the BA should be the happy realm of the more philsophical and normative, and you positivist fools can put your microscopes to beings that are not scientific… with the appropriate humorus BS designation…
you can have the limited realm of the “is,” i will take the “ought” and the parts of the “is” that are useful.
and i don’t know why a war of ego’s between different philosophical traditions would “lower your opinion of analytical philosophy.”
in the end, normative / linguistic / postivist all must and do co-exist. i fail to so how one tradition really alters/destorys or has an ordinal postition in relation to the other - the problem is when people become dogmatic about the tools of critical thinking.
I’ve only read the book insofar as I’ve picked it up and skimmed it for a half hour or so at the bookstore. That I didn’t buy it says something; but I did like what I read.
I read it a while back. Fascinating character, this Wittgenstein…they should make a movie about him starring Jamie Fox as Wittgenstein. Not sure why Hollywood doesn’t cast more opposites. Make it interesting. Shake things up. Make it Jungian.
The book was great, don’t know if I learned anything but it was very dramatic. Made think it’s all bullshit, so I so whatr you’re saying.
i consider his works to be the high points of logical positivism, both for what is good, and for what is limiting about it. most of what popper got wrong, marx and other such idealists and old school behavioralists get wrong - is in pretending the human is to be exclusively realized scientifically and axiomatically.
wittgenstein, of course, takes nearly the opposite epistomological folly almost to its own absurd extreme…
if ever two people deserved each other, it was them… lol
Popper was just pissed because Wittgenstein outsmarted him and proved that there are no genuine philosophical problems.
This put em’ all outta work. Think about it. I mean what do philosophers get paid to do? Solve problems. If there are no problems, Popper gets to bag groceries at Food Lion.
Perhaps someone can try to answer the points raised - did Wittgenstein actually go mad? Whether he was right or not, if someone started waving a poker around at me, I would call a psychiatrist. Hayek actually thought that he did go mad.
And the book does seem to raise the question if modern philosophy is any different from theology. It seems that Wittgenstein had a great and magnetic personality - but it is disturbing that even Keynes called him “God”. It is similar to the attitude to Plato in the 19th Century …
It seems to me that Wittgenstein may have just been misunderstood by western society and more importantly himself. If he would have moved to Japan his actions would have been seen as those of an enlightened Zen master. It is my opinion that Wittgenstein was an example of what happens to someone who despite the logicentric domination of 20th century western thought achieves Satori.
Well third-eye, I have to agree with you to some extent. Most of his admirers may simply state that he was a misunderstood genius, but that simplifies my statement.
In the context of western, to be more specific analytic, philosophy Wittgenstein doesn’t make sense. He’ll never fit quite right if you try to understand him from that perspective, so if you are coming from there I sympathise with your quote: “I totally fail to see the attraction.” When I first encountered him I found him inaccessible at best and at other times I felt he was a con artist who made his way into philosophy by way of trickery. I couldn’t understand why brilliant people like Russel were beyond impressed with his thinking. This however is unfair.
What I am saying is that in the context of Eastern thought, to be more specific Zen, Wittgenstein isn’t saying anything new. He would probably be chastized for making such simple ideas far too complex or thinking to hard about that which shouldn’t be thought. However you have to understand the man was deeply rooted in analitic thinking. The conclusions he drew with such a closed perspective are really amazing. I could go on but my girlfriend is hungry.
