Skip to main content

One of Popper's Students Writes ...

Image result for fireplace poker
Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein were two of the giants of mid-century philosophy, especially of the Anglo-centric sort. They could each legitimately claim to the the true heir to Bertrand Russell as Russell receded from the central issues under debate in favor of a role as senior sage for antinuclear activists.

There is an oft-today story of a ten minute argument between the two at a meeting hosted by the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club. Popper argued that there are substantive moral issues that philosophy can address, Wittgenstein replied that all Popper's examples of such questions were in fact linguistic confusions. Wittgenstein was standing next to a fireplace and started waving a poke around as the discussion, no pun intended, became heated.

By way of winding up the discussion, Popper said that there was at least one moral certitude, that one should not "threaten visiting lecturers with pokers."

I bring up this familiar story because a student of Popper's, Joseph Agassi, has just written a monograph about Wittgenstein, thus continuing the old dispute into a new generation. The new book is called, LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN'S PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS: AN ATTEMPT AT A CRITICAL RATIONALIST APPRAISAL.

Although Popper remains an important influence in the philosophy of science, the influence of his "critical rationalism" elsewhere has waned, and Wittgenstein's influence has often seemed to have no limits. Agassi seeks to re-state the balance, if not indeed to throw the beam all the way to the other side.


Comments

  1. There is an entire book on the poker incident: Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers, by David Edmonds and John Eidinow.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers