Wittgenstiens philosophy ends in meaninglessness

To give two examples, Kripke and Priest point out that Wittgenstein's argument entails a skepticism about meaning, namely that all language is meaningless. This places Wittgenstein in a self-contradiction. Wittgenstein writes a book, in a language game, in order to convey some meaning. If the meaning is that all language is meaningless, then the meaning has been conveyed. Thus all language is not meaningless in this particular language game. Priest, in his book Beyond the Limits of Thought, has pointed out these self-contradictions in Wittgenstein's views. As he states "… none the less the point remains, the conclusion that results from the skeptical argument and that Wittgenstein wishes us to grasp, is beyond expression (Transcendence). Yet it is possible to express it; I have just done so and so does Kripke (Closure). Hence we have a contradiction at the limit of expression." Wittgenstein is still inside the bottle the only way out for the fly is not via logic and language but by their complete demolition.

The Chinese scholar Hsueh-li Cheng, in his book on Madhyamika called Empty Logic, notes the self-contradiction in the notion of meaning as use. As he states:

"From Nagarjuna's standpoint, the view that " the meaning of a word is its use in language" really involves a contradiction or absurdity. Wittgenstein's thesis indicates that the meaning of a word is "fixed" or "determined" by its particular use in the particular situation. This implies that each word has its own or particular use in the language and that that particular use is its meaning. But language, Nagarjuna might point out, is an organised system of signs where words are inter-related and hence are devoid of their own use. So, the thesis that the meaning of a word is its use in language would be to say that a word has its own use in an organised system of signs where every word is devoid of its own use. That is contradictory."