Philosophical Thought
eISSN : 0000-0000
10.5
citescore
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years
10.5
impact factor
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
pubmed
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
Embase
Biosis Preview
Volume 6, Issue 2 (2026)
3 2026, 6(2): 125-139 |
Back to browse issues page
Request Type:
History
Received: 2026/01/15 | Accepted: 2026/02/23 | Published: 2026/03/6
Received: 2026/01/15 | Accepted: 2026/02/23 | Published: 2026/03/6
How to cite this article
Mohammad Ghorbanian H, Moeini S. Critique of Paul Horwich's Interpretation of Later Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy; Pure Description and Theoretical Structure Challenge. 3 2026; 6 (2) :125-139
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-85695-en.html
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-85695-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Keywords:
| Abstract (HTML) (392 Views)
Full-Text: (44 Views)
Later Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy represents one of the most influential transformations in twentieth-century philosophy. Departing from the systematic and theory-oriented ambitions of traditional philosophy, Wittgenstein reconceived philosophical inquiry as a descriptive and therapeutic activity whose primary task is not the discovery of new truths but the dissolution of conceptual confusions. In Philosophical Investigations, he famously characterizes philosophy as “a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” [Wittgenstein, 2009: §109]. From this perspective, philosophical problems are not primarily generated by empirical ignorance or logical deficiency but by misunderstandings concerning the use of language, misleading analogies, and inappropriate generalizations. Consequently, philosophy functions as a therapeutic enterprise aimed at restoring clarity by examining ordinary linguistic practices.
Among contemporary interpreters of Wittgenstein, Paul Horwich has offered one of the most comprehensive and systematic accounts of Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy. In Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy (2013), Horwich argues that Wittgenstein’s later philosophy provides a distinctive conception of philosophy itself, according to which most traditional philosophical problems are pseudo-problems arising from linguistic confusion. Horwich attempts to reconstruct this conception through a unified explanatory framework, presenting what may be described as an eight-stage philosophical project designed to diagnose and dissolve philosophical perplexities. His interpretation has become influential because it simultaneously preserves Wittgenstein’s anti-theoretical commitments while offering a coherent account of how philosophical investigation should proceed.
The present study critically examines Horwich’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy and investigates whether Horwich succeeds in remaining faithful to the descriptive and anti-theoretical spirit of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. The central question is whether Horwich’s attempt to systematize Wittgenstein’s therapeutic method ultimately reintroduces precisely the kind of theoretical structure that Wittgenstein sought to resist.
The research employs an analytical and critical methodology based primarily on a close reading of Horwich’s Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy (2013) in conjunction with Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations [Wittgenstein, 2009]. The study reconstructs Horwich’s interpretive framework and then evaluates its consistency with the central metaphilosophical commitments of later Wittgenstein.
Horwich’s interpretation is organized around the claim that traditional philosophical problems are pseudo-problems generated by conceptual confusion rather than genuine questions about reality [Horwich, 2013: 8-9]. According to Horwich, philosophers are often misled by superficial similarities among linguistic expressions used in different contexts. Such confusions lead them to formulate abstract theoretical questions that appear profound but are in fact products of linguistic misunderstanding. This interpretation closely follows Wittgenstein’s insistence that many philosophical difficulties arise from analogies between distinct language-games and from the misuse of words outside their ordinary contexts [Wittgenstein, 2009: §90].
To explain the formation and persistence of philosophical problems, Horwich proposes an eight-stage framework. The process begins with the mistaken expectation that philosophy should resemble science by providing explanatory theories and universal principles. Philosophers then rely on metaphors and analogies that gradually become dominant conceptual pictures. These pictures are generalized beyond their legitimate contexts, producing tensions between abstract philosophical assumptions and actual linguistic practices. The resulting conflicts generate philosophical paradoxes, which in turn encourage further theoretical constructions intended to resolve the confusion. Finally, Wittgensteinian therapy dissolves the pseudo-problem by returning to the ordinary use of language and exposing the conceptual mistake underlying the paradox [Horwich, 2013: 8-14].
Horwich applies this framework to a wide range of philosophical issues, including Zeno’s paradoxes, the problem of free will, private language, consciousness, and the liar paradox. In each case, he argues that philosophical perplexity originates in a conflict between a misleading conceptual picture and actual linguistic practice. The therapeutic solution therefore consists not in constructing a new theory but in clarifying how relevant concepts function within ordinary language-games [Horwich, 2013: 12-15].
A particularly important component of Horwich’s interpretation is what may be called his reductionist thesis. He argues that most philosophical problems share a common structure: they arise from a tension between an a priori assumption and an a posteriori reality [Horwich, 2013: 5-14]. Philosophers accept certain principles as self-evident or conceptually necessary and then encounter empirical facts or linguistic practices that appear to conflict with those principles. Rather than questioning the underlying assumptions, they construct increasingly sophisticated theories to reconcile the tension. According to Horwich, Wittgensteinian therapy reveals that the conflict itself is largely illusory and results from conceptual confusion.
The study acknowledges several important strengths in Horwich’s interpretation. First, Horwich successfully highlights the centrality of language in Wittgenstein’s philosophy. He convincingly demonstrates that linguistic confusion is both the source of philosophical perplexity and the means through which such perplexity can be overcome. Second, Horwich provides a powerful defense of Wittgenstein’s anti-theoretical conception of philosophy, emphasizing that philosophical investigation should be descriptive rather than explanatory [Wittgenstein, 2009: §§124-126]. Third, he develops a sophisticated account of philosophical therapy, showing how conceptual clarification can function as a form of intellectual healing rather than theoretical problem-solving [Crary & Read, 2000]. Finally, Horwich effectively rejects the accusation that Wittgenstein’s later philosophy amounts to anti-philosophy. Instead, he presents Wittgenstein as offering a transformed conception of philosophy that remains both meaningful and necessary [Hutto, 2003: 217].
Despite these achievements, the article argues that Horwich’s interpretation contains several significant tensions. The first concerns systematization. Wittgenstein repeatedly emphasized that philosophy does not possess a single method but rather a plurality of methods adapted to particular conceptual difficulties [Wittgenstein, 2009: §133]. Yet Horwich’s eight-stage framework introduces a relatively fixed methodological structure that functions almost as a philosophical algorithm. By transforming Wittgenstein’s diverse therapeutic interventions into a unified procedure, Horwich risks imposing a theoretical order upon a fundamentally anti-systematic philosophical practice.
The second criticism concerns reductionism. Horwich’s claim that nearly all philosophical problems can be reduced to conflicts between a priori assumptions and a posteriori realities appears itself to exemplify the kind of excessive generalization that Wittgenstein frequently criticized. While the framework may illuminate certain philosophical problems, it struggles to accommodate the diversity and complexity of issues such as rule-following, meaning, and consciousness. In some cases, Horwich’s own analyses rely on detailed examinations of specific linguistic confusions that cannot easily be subsumed under his general schema [Horwich, 2013: 184-191].
The third criticism involves what may be called the paradox of explanation. Horwich repeatedly emphasizes Wittgenstein’s rejection of explanatory theorizing and his commitment to pure description [Wittgenstein, 2009: §126]. Nevertheless, Horwich simultaneously praises the explanatory power of his own interpretive framework and presents it as explaining why philosophical problems arise [Horwich, 2013: 15-21]. This move appears to reintroduce precisely the explanatory ambitions that Wittgenstein sought to abandon. As a result, Horwich’s interpretation risks becoming a metaphilosophical theory about the impossibility of philosophical theories.
The study concludes that Horwich’s interpretation represents one of the most insightful and influential contemporary reconstructions of Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy. His emphasis on language, therapy, and anti-theoretical philosophy successfully captures many essential aspects of Wittgenstein’s later thought. However, the very attempt to render Wittgenstein’s philosophy systematic, unified, and theoretically coherent generates tensions with Wittgenstein’s commitment to descriptive particularity, methodological plurality, and resistance to philosophical system-building. Consequently, Horwich’s interpretation occupies an unstable position: it seeks to defend an anti-theoretical philosophy by means of a highly structured theoretical framework. This tension reveals a deeper metaphilosophical problem concerning whether Wittgenstein’s later philosophy can be systematically reconstructed without compromising its fundamental character. The article therefore suggests that future interpretations should place greater emphasis on the contextual, pluralistic, and non-systematic dimensions of Wittgenstein’s therapeutic practice.
Among contemporary interpreters of Wittgenstein, Paul Horwich has offered one of the most comprehensive and systematic accounts of Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy. In Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy (2013), Horwich argues that Wittgenstein’s later philosophy provides a distinctive conception of philosophy itself, according to which most traditional philosophical problems are pseudo-problems arising from linguistic confusion. Horwich attempts to reconstruct this conception through a unified explanatory framework, presenting what may be described as an eight-stage philosophical project designed to diagnose and dissolve philosophical perplexities. His interpretation has become influential because it simultaneously preserves Wittgenstein’s anti-theoretical commitments while offering a coherent account of how philosophical investigation should proceed.
The present study critically examines Horwich’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy and investigates whether Horwich succeeds in remaining faithful to the descriptive and anti-theoretical spirit of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. The central question is whether Horwich’s attempt to systematize Wittgenstein’s therapeutic method ultimately reintroduces precisely the kind of theoretical structure that Wittgenstein sought to resist.
The research employs an analytical and critical methodology based primarily on a close reading of Horwich’s Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy (2013) in conjunction with Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations [Wittgenstein, 2009]. The study reconstructs Horwich’s interpretive framework and then evaluates its consistency with the central metaphilosophical commitments of later Wittgenstein.
Horwich’s interpretation is organized around the claim that traditional philosophical problems are pseudo-problems generated by conceptual confusion rather than genuine questions about reality [Horwich, 2013: 8-9]. According to Horwich, philosophers are often misled by superficial similarities among linguistic expressions used in different contexts. Such confusions lead them to formulate abstract theoretical questions that appear profound but are in fact products of linguistic misunderstanding. This interpretation closely follows Wittgenstein’s insistence that many philosophical difficulties arise from analogies between distinct language-games and from the misuse of words outside their ordinary contexts [Wittgenstein, 2009: §90].
To explain the formation and persistence of philosophical problems, Horwich proposes an eight-stage framework. The process begins with the mistaken expectation that philosophy should resemble science by providing explanatory theories and universal principles. Philosophers then rely on metaphors and analogies that gradually become dominant conceptual pictures. These pictures are generalized beyond their legitimate contexts, producing tensions between abstract philosophical assumptions and actual linguistic practices. The resulting conflicts generate philosophical paradoxes, which in turn encourage further theoretical constructions intended to resolve the confusion. Finally, Wittgensteinian therapy dissolves the pseudo-problem by returning to the ordinary use of language and exposing the conceptual mistake underlying the paradox [Horwich, 2013: 8-14].
Horwich applies this framework to a wide range of philosophical issues, including Zeno’s paradoxes, the problem of free will, private language, consciousness, and the liar paradox. In each case, he argues that philosophical perplexity originates in a conflict between a misleading conceptual picture and actual linguistic practice. The therapeutic solution therefore consists not in constructing a new theory but in clarifying how relevant concepts function within ordinary language-games [Horwich, 2013: 12-15].
A particularly important component of Horwich’s interpretation is what may be called his reductionist thesis. He argues that most philosophical problems share a common structure: they arise from a tension between an a priori assumption and an a posteriori reality [Horwich, 2013: 5-14]. Philosophers accept certain principles as self-evident or conceptually necessary and then encounter empirical facts or linguistic practices that appear to conflict with those principles. Rather than questioning the underlying assumptions, they construct increasingly sophisticated theories to reconcile the tension. According to Horwich, Wittgensteinian therapy reveals that the conflict itself is largely illusory and results from conceptual confusion.
The study acknowledges several important strengths in Horwich’s interpretation. First, Horwich successfully highlights the centrality of language in Wittgenstein’s philosophy. He convincingly demonstrates that linguistic confusion is both the source of philosophical perplexity and the means through which such perplexity can be overcome. Second, Horwich provides a powerful defense of Wittgenstein’s anti-theoretical conception of philosophy, emphasizing that philosophical investigation should be descriptive rather than explanatory [Wittgenstein, 2009: §§124-126]. Third, he develops a sophisticated account of philosophical therapy, showing how conceptual clarification can function as a form of intellectual healing rather than theoretical problem-solving [Crary & Read, 2000]. Finally, Horwich effectively rejects the accusation that Wittgenstein’s later philosophy amounts to anti-philosophy. Instead, he presents Wittgenstein as offering a transformed conception of philosophy that remains both meaningful and necessary [Hutto, 2003: 217].
Despite these achievements, the article argues that Horwich’s interpretation contains several significant tensions. The first concerns systematization. Wittgenstein repeatedly emphasized that philosophy does not possess a single method but rather a plurality of methods adapted to particular conceptual difficulties [Wittgenstein, 2009: §133]. Yet Horwich’s eight-stage framework introduces a relatively fixed methodological structure that functions almost as a philosophical algorithm. By transforming Wittgenstein’s diverse therapeutic interventions into a unified procedure, Horwich risks imposing a theoretical order upon a fundamentally anti-systematic philosophical practice.
The second criticism concerns reductionism. Horwich’s claim that nearly all philosophical problems can be reduced to conflicts between a priori assumptions and a posteriori realities appears itself to exemplify the kind of excessive generalization that Wittgenstein frequently criticized. While the framework may illuminate certain philosophical problems, it struggles to accommodate the diversity and complexity of issues such as rule-following, meaning, and consciousness. In some cases, Horwich’s own analyses rely on detailed examinations of specific linguistic confusions that cannot easily be subsumed under his general schema [Horwich, 2013: 184-191].
The third criticism involves what may be called the paradox of explanation. Horwich repeatedly emphasizes Wittgenstein’s rejection of explanatory theorizing and his commitment to pure description [Wittgenstein, 2009: §126]. Nevertheless, Horwich simultaneously praises the explanatory power of his own interpretive framework and presents it as explaining why philosophical problems arise [Horwich, 2013: 15-21]. This move appears to reintroduce precisely the explanatory ambitions that Wittgenstein sought to abandon. As a result, Horwich’s interpretation risks becoming a metaphilosophical theory about the impossibility of philosophical theories.
The study concludes that Horwich’s interpretation represents one of the most insightful and influential contemporary reconstructions of Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy. His emphasis on language, therapy, and anti-theoretical philosophy successfully captures many essential aspects of Wittgenstein’s later thought. However, the very attempt to render Wittgenstein’s philosophy systematic, unified, and theoretically coherent generates tensions with Wittgenstein’s commitment to descriptive particularity, methodological plurality, and resistance to philosophical system-building. Consequently, Horwich’s interpretation occupies an unstable position: it seeks to defend an anti-theoretical philosophy by means of a highly structured theoretical framework. This tension reveals a deeper metaphilosophical problem concerning whether Wittgenstein’s later philosophy can be systematically reconstructed without compromising its fundamental character. The article therefore suggests that future interpretations should place greater emphasis on the contextual, pluralistic, and non-systematic dimensions of Wittgenstein’s therapeutic practice.
References
1. Bunnin N, Yu J, editors (2004). The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/b.9781405106795.2004.00015.x]
2. Crary A, Read R, editors (2000). The new Wittgenstein. London: Routledge. [Link]
3. Hodjati SMA, Ghorbanian HM, Nabavi L, Golfam A (2014). In defense of Paul Horwich's theory of meaning against critics. Philosophy and Kalam. 47(1):31-46. [Persian] [Link]
4. Horwich P (1999). Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link]
5. Horwich P (2013). Wittgenstein's metaphilosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588879.003.0001]
6. Hutto DD (2003). Wittgenstein and the end of philosophy: Neither theory nor therapy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/9780230503205]
7. Meshkat M (2013). The beginning of philosophy from the viewpoint of later Wittgenstein and Hegel. Wisdom And Philosophy. 9(34):21-62. [Persian] [Link]
8. Mohammad Ghorbanian H (2021). Consideration and critique of Horwich's solution for the liar paradox in terms of the minimalist theory of truth. Philosophia et Theologia: Dialogues in Criticism and Reflection. 26(102):32-61. [Persian] [Link]
9. Mohammad Ghorbanian H, Hojjati A (2010). Paul Horwich: Minimalist theory of truth and scientific realism. Philosophy of Religion Research. 7(1):5-34. [Persian] [Link]
10. Mosmer R (2019). Horwich's criticism of Kripke's account of rule-following. Philosophy of Science. 8(2):105-127. [Persian] [Link]
11. Norman RJ (1976). Hegel's "phenomenology": A philosophical introduction. Eastbourne: Sussex University Press. [Link]
12. Putnam H (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511625398]
13. Wittgenstein L (2006). Blue book. Hoseini M, translator. Tehran: Hermes Press. [Persian] [Link]
14. Wittgenstein L (2009). Philosophical investigations. 4th edition. Anscombe GEM, Hacker PMS, Schulte J, translators. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953) [Link]
15. Wittgenstein L (2019). Philosophical investigations. Hoseini M, translator. Tehran: Hermes Press. [Persian] [Link]
16. Wittgenstein L (2021). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Hoseini M, translator. Tehran: Hermes Press. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.2307/j.ctv22d4t7n]