Sir, - John Banville's review of the book by David Edmonds and John Edinow about the disagreements between Wittgenstein and Popper excited my interest, because I have been a silent disciple of Karl Popper since being introduced to his work in David Thornley's lectures almost 40 years ago (Books, May 26th). (Thornley never took a roll-call and his lectures were always full.)
Not knowing a lot about Wittgenstein, I suppose I would be wrong to categorise him in the "angels on the point of a pin" type of philosopher? Popper is different. The kernel of his thought is directly applicable to society and the practical world. In my experience his philosophy can help in areas as diverse as politics, commercial activity, the arts, and sport.
The essence of Popper's theories is the conviction that there are no "absolutes" in this life, no "final solutions". Society in all its aspects can be improved only gradually, brick by brick. There are no "right" answers, only the best we can do for the moment. Hence, for example, his philosophy underpins the democratic process, and rejects any form of absolutism such as communism or the more extreme religions.
It is a tragedy Banville can say that Popper is hardly remembered, since his vision is immensely important in a civilised world. Sadly, his vision lacks glamour, which is often the case with sound and desirable policies. His key phrase in The Open Society and Its Enemies, "piecemeal social engineering", is an unromantic mouthful.
Karl Popper was passionate about his beliefs, and I passionately believe they can help us solve our social problems. What am I saying? Any linking of passion with the concept of solutions will have him turning in his grave. - Yours, etc.,
Hugh Mackeown, Burrow Road, Sutton, Dublin 13.