A Critical Exposition Of Some Of Hart's Appropriations & Misappropriation Of Wittgenstein's Late Philosophy

In the first half of 20th century, Wittgenstein and Hart are two geniuses in western philosophy and jurisprudence respectively. If we compare the thoughts of those two geniuses who made great contribution to two different fields, we can find a sort of affiliation. However, different scholars have different opinions on the affiliation and always argue with each other. That is why the author chooses such subject to be his research topics. Based on the long-term one-side quotation and quotation from third parties, domestic scholars take it for granted that the philosophy foundation of Hart's theory is J.L Austin's language philosophy. My point is: if we premise that Hart is affected by J.L Austin,Ryle and some other contemporary Oxford philosophers, Hart is more influenced by Wittgenstein. The core area of his philosophy theory is penetrated by Wittgenstein's typical philosophy concepts and deeper theory. The author attempts to use these typical concepts as clues to reveal the actual relationship between the two theories through comparative studies.As a disputed genius, Wittgenstein's late philosophy theory is more creative and groundbreaking than previous theory. The unique descriptive task, anti-essence philosophy goals and grammar type philosophy research method are the new trend in the development of philosophy– the modern philosophy develops towards the practice philosophy. The above features are elements that are drained into law philosophy by Hart. So, Hart's choice is both contingent and inevitable. Hart and Wittgenstein lives in two different eras. That is the contingency. However, Wittgenstein's theory can cope with legal positivism theory crisis at that time. That is the inevitability.Apparently speaking, Hart seems to adopt several concepts from Wittgenstein, such as language games, open structure, standard meter, etc. But substantially speaking, he use Wittgenstein's core concepts to solve legal philosophy problems. For example, Hart uses "language games" concept to define law problems; he uses "open structure" concept to explain legal concepts in legal practices which help legal concepts to be both independent and flexible; and he uses "philosophy of praxis" concept to make solid foundation for legal authority theory in legal positivism.Of course, Hart absorbs Wittgenstein's theory critically. He adopts reasonable elements and abandons unreasonable elements. Indeed, the application of Wittgenstein's theory differs from that of Hart's theory. Wittgenstein's theory has its own life and certain parts of the theory threat the existence of law philosophy theory which is unacceptable by Hart. So, Hart makes necessary choice among elements.Hart's usage of Wittgenstein's late philosophy is valuable. He not only solves the concept of law transcendently, but also finds a reasonable position for the authority of law. Meanwhile, He holds the standpoint of legal positivism. However, there are still several puzzles in jurisprudence. They deserve our further study.