Political Science Observations

Criticisms of Wittgenstein's Philosophy

Examining the major critiques of Ludwig Wittgenstein's early and later work

Ludwig Wittgenstein is a unique figure in philosophy: revered by many as a genius who revolutionized the field, yet heavily criticized from multiple angles throughout his career and beyond. This page explores the major criticisms of both his early work (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and his later work (Philosophical Investigations).

Criticisms of the Early Wittgenstein

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Overly Dogmatic and Metaphysical

The Tractatus presents itself as a final, complete solution to all philosophical problems. Ironically, for a book that seeks to eliminate metaphysics, its core concepts were themselves unverifiable metaphysical speculations.

Key critic: Bertrand Russell

The Problem of "Simple Objects"

The entire picture theory of meaning rests on names referring to "simple objects." Wittgenstein never provides convincing examples of what these "simples" are, making this foundational concept obscure and problematic.

The Ineffability Paradox

The Tractatus concludes that its own propositions are "nonsensical." Wittgenstein's solution—that we must "throw away the ladder after we have climbed up on it"—was seen as intellectually dishonest or a clever trick.

Dismissiveness Towards Important Domains

By consigning ethics, aesthetics, religion, and the meaning of life to the realm of "that whereof we cannot speak," critics argued Wittgenstein was dismissing rather than solving philosophy's most important questions.

Criticisms of the Later Wittgenstein

Philosophical Investigations

Rejection of Systematic Philosophy

Wittgenstein rejected building theories or explanations in favor of "therapy" for philosophical puzzlements. To many, this looked like giving up on philosophy's goal of seeking deep, systematic truth.

Relativism and Conservatism

By grounding meaning in "forms of life," Wittgenstein seemed to suggest that any language-game is as good as any other. This was seen as a conservative relativism that could justify any belief system.

Key critic: Ernest Gellner

Rule-Following Paradox and Scepticism

Wittgenstein's discussion suggests no rule can fully determine its own application. Some philosophers interpreted this as a devastating form of sceptical paradox that destroyed objective meaning.

Key interpreter/critic: Saul Kripke

Obscurity and Aphoristic Style

The Investigations is not a linear argument but a collection of remarks and dialogues. Critics found this style frustrating and obscure, making it difficult to pin down Wittgenstein's positive theses.

Perceived Narrowness

Wittgenstein's focus was almost exclusively on language. Critics argued this ignored crucial aspects of human experience like embodiment, history, power structures, and emotion.

Summary of Key Criticisms

Criticism Target	Core Complaint	Key Critics / Debates
The Tractatus	Ineffability Paradox: Its own propositions are self-refuting nonsense	Russell, logical positivists
The Tractatus	Metaphysics: Its foundation ("simple objects") is unverified metaphysical speculation	Russell, P.M.S. Hacker
The Investigations	Anti-Theory: Abandons explanation for mere "therapy"	Traditional systematic philosophers
The Investigations	Relativism: "Forms of life" lead to conservative relativism	Ernest Gellner
The Investigations	Rule-Following: Introduces radical scepticism about meaning	Saul Kripke (as interpreter)
General Style	Obscurity: Aphoristic style avoids clear argumentation	Many across philosophical spectrum

Conclusion

In essence, Wittgenstein was criticized for being too metaphysical in his early work and not metaphysical enough in his later work. He consistently stood outside the mainstream of philosophical tradition, and his radical ideas—whether building a grand system or tearing down the very idea of such systems—guaranteed that he would be a constant target of criticism, even as he profoundly shaped the course of 20th-century philosophy.