Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers
By David Edmonds & John Eidinow

I read this book with a certain expectation that was never met, so as I neared the end I was increasingly annoyed. My annoyance was at my misconception and not at the book itself, but it still might affect my opinion of the book.

I expected an introduction to Wittgenstein's philosophy, but throughout the book I only ever found suggestions of, or at best a few very brief synopses of, Wittgenstein's philosophical thoughts. The vast majority of the book introduced me to Wittgenstein, the person (and to Popper, too, although with roughly half as much emphasis - and apparently of esteem - by the authors): his childhood, his family and environment, his academic history, etc.*

But the book, a self-proclaimed "story of a ten-minute argument between two great philosophers," went off on long, barely-related tangents. Hoping to sculpt a background for the reader's understanding of the argument of focus, the book describes how the world shaped the personalities of Wittgenstein and Popper throughout their lives. This ended up being helpful because, due to so little factual information existing about the actual argument, the argument was described in only 17 out of the book's ~300 pages, and was told in a dream-like, nebulous fashion, leaving much to the reader's imagination. But in delving into this history of the philosophers, the authors expound upon those who affected them (e.g., family, mentors), and then those who affect those who affected them, and then the social climate that affected some of those who affected the philosophers, etc. I can't say it was unnecessary, but much of it seemed only distantly and tenuously connected to Witgenstein's and Popper's ten-minute argument.

Also, giving the reader a background helps guide the reader toward conclusions about who did and said what during the argument, so it should be remembered that the background could be biased. Indeed, I think it is biased towards Wittgenstein. The authors say positive things about both philosophers, and portray similar aspects of each philosopher (when talking about the childhood of one, they mention the childhood of the other; the affluence of one's family, so the other's; etc.), but in almost every instance the authors spend almost twice as much time discussing Wittgenstein as they do Popper.

That said, I did find most of the book compelling. I kept wanting to read more; I just wish I hadn't been in the mindset of waiting for the book to finally get on to the topic I was expecting.



* I'm not suggesting that knowing the philosopher is not helpful in understanding the philosophy; I'm saying that I was expecting to learn about the philosophy and not the philosopher.

Yeah, Popper gets shafted in that book. In spite of how petulant and moody they make Wittgenstein appear, they manage to make Popper look even worse.

I enjoyed the book. I delivers exactly what it intends, which is personality for two figures who otherwise tend to be identified across time by only their work. I think if you were looking for much more of their philosophy, you picked up the wrong book. It's an appetite-whetter.

I later picked up Rousseau's Dog, by the same author's, which focuses on Rousseau / Hume. I didn't get forty pages into it, though; it just didn't grab me. Anybody else get to that one?

the best possible book about Wittgenstein that combines a biography with an introduction to his thought is Ray Monk's "The Duty of Genius"

Yeah, Popper gets shafted in that book. In spite of how petulant and moody they make Wittgenstein appear, they manage to make Popper look even worse.
Popular opinion of the day agrees that Witty was indeed petulant and moody. I don't care much for Popper's philosophical ideas, and I've never read the book, so that's about all the comment I can make here.