J:
"It was the property of Cambridge, most likely,"
--- Yes. But McEvoy (a friend of mine) has pointed out to me that possession is (I forget what percentage, 75%) of ownership, by British law (or something).
"tho' St Ludwig was, apparently, quite fond of waving it around, at one point threatening Karl Popper (as you are probably aware). Did LW have the Poker, or maybe ..the Poker had him?
According to reports (I have a copy of Witt's Poker, and read a bit, until nauseated), even Lord Russell's stoical reserve finally cracked and he barked something like STFU! to Wittgenstein, his former protege. On the whole Popper and Russell seem a bit...saner, however pedantic. Witt. at times verged on madness, tho' supposedly Popper did intend to rile him up, and more or less dismissed Witt's preoccupation with language."
--- Yes, that episode has been the laughing stock of much. The way philosophers, who can quote from things, cannot remember diddly. As I recall, one philosopher only recalled of the incident that Margaret Masterman wasn't wearing underwear (as was his wont).
----
You are absolutely right about Popper and Witters. It was a polemic, absurd, about 'rules' and stuff. Never to have happened in Oxford!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm not saying it was merely academic trivia, exactly. There's more than meets the eye to the Poker spat. Russell and Witt. for one, had for years drifted apart, for various reasons. But I suggest there might have been a slight ideological battle underway. The late Witt. was a bit comfy with catholics for one (e.g. the Geaches, and others). Witt. was christened a catholic; his mama's side was mostly catholic ("some jew" as some vienna jews said). Even his papa's side had converted to xtianity. Was Wittgenstein sort of fed up with Russell the arch-skeptic and his crony Herr Doktor Popper?? (quite the Humean ...and Darwinist, at least initially). Not inconceivable. At least that would show a method to Witt's madness.
ReplyDeleteWittgenstein even flirted with...the left at times, had friends in USSR--Russell was adamantly opposed to the USSR (tho' not a nazi sympathizer as some apparatchiks insisted...BR had attacked the nazis and blackshirts even in the 20s, when many brit. intellectuals and Churchill were approving). Also consider Popper's Open Society, which Russell approved (it's not the worst book, but fairly shallow readings of Hegel), and Comrade Wittgenstein did not, most likely.
Yes -- but what stuck with me about the report is that Margaret Masterman was not wearing underwear. She of course KNEW. She was married to Braithwaite, and it was Braithwaite's Rooms they were playing. The poker was possibly Braithwaite's.
ReplyDeleteThis philosopher (NOT Braithwaite) recalled, on being questioned what he remembered about the episode). (Words to the effect): "All I remember clearly is the way Mrs. Braithwaite kept crossing her eyes like THAT. She wasn't wearing any underwear."
I am told that is a French custom. Not to wear underwear (YET wear skirts). (Or Scots).
Heh. Braithwaite was firmly in the Popper/Russell camp, however, as I imagine his wifey was as well (Witt' Poker mentions Miss B.s legs crossing but not any sans-undie-ness)
ReplyDeleteThe accuracy of the reporting of the Poker incident is another problem. Popper actually fibbed a bit apparently. Weren't there like a half-dozen Cambridge big guns of Phil. in attendance? (Toulmin was. Geach. Ayers?). A few people approved of Russell's loud reprimand to Wittgenstein (after which Witt. did apparently exit hastily). Others were most sympathetic to Witt. Popper said something like "it was not the Wittgenstein I expected to meet."
Lets not forget the leftists and marxist were quite upset with the Open Society (and with the aged Russell's red baiting). There were even some protests of Popper I believe. So ...was Wittgenstein representing for the Peoples? Possiblay. For that matter, was Wittgenstein perhaps a covert spy for the USSR, at least during WWII (also involved in the ENIGMA crack, with his one time student/ pal Turing), and afterwards? Also possiblay.
Yes, and possiblay she WAS wearing undies. I should check that. But how?
ReplyDeletenice post.. keep it up...i am fanatic also in playing poker...
ReplyDeletepoker en ligne francais
regards,
badloi