Questioning Wittgenstein

1 Concept of Science
The problem of Wittgenstein is his concept of science. What can be said by means of the picture theory is very limited. Even sentences of logic cannot be accommodated. Should science (and especially philosophy) not try to explain the phenomenons of our life rather then say something about a limited area of our life?

2 Criticizing Wittgenstein from his later philosophy
Is perhaps the scientific language not the only language which has meaning? The later Wittgenstein argues that there is a plurality of languages (or language games, as he calls it), that are equally valid: “The speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life. [There is a] multiplicity of language games ...: Giving orders, and obeying them. Describing the appearance of an object ... Reporting an event. Speculating about an event. Forming and testing a hypothesis... Making up a story; and reading it. Play-acting... Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.
It is interesting to compare the multiplicity of the tools in language and of the ways they are used ... with what logicians have said about the structure of language. (Including the author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.” (Philosophical Investigations, §23) All these language games follow their own logic and their own rules.

3 What is the task of philosophy?
We have to decide between a philosophical theory on logicist or empiricist premises and our every day understanding of moral language. Should we deconstruct and deny an important aspect of our life? Or should we try to explain the phenomenons that surround us and decide our life? (The question would also be what are we doing in the “philosophy of the human person”? We try to give an account of the phenomenons that surround us.)

For further discussion please consult also the Entry on Wittgenstein in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (See link list)