Abstract

In this article, I discuss the epistemological aspects of ‘radical disagreement’ with reference to Chantal Mouffe’s theory of democracy and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s late philosophy. Mouffe builds on the latter to provide the necessary epistemological foundation to her critique of ‘rationalistic’ political philosophy and to continue this critique on the epistemological register. I argue, however, that her reading of Wittgenstein misses aspects vital to his ‘deep contextualism’. If we remain faithful to his project, the existence of a plurality of forms of life does not necessitate a rejection of the paradigm of justification as it is embedded in ‘rationalistic’ currents of contemporary political philosophy. Using the example of John Rawls’s brand of political liberalism, I show furthermore that we can reconcile it with Mouffe’s project of radical democracy if we interpret their differences as the expression of a division of labor in the analysis of different types of political disagreement. This newly won possibility of reconciling these important currents of contemporary philosophy, however, raises the question, which I will discuss towards the end of the article, how to determine the boundaries of democratic forms of life.