I think most books treat his early and late theories as inconsistent theories, in a sense that one can agree on either his early or late theory, but not both. However, I think the two theories are supplementary, and it is possible to agree on both of his theories.
Here is what I mean. I think his early theory deals exclusively with descriptive sentences, such as:
- The man is fighting with a lion.
- The mother saved her child from a burning house.
- The warrior defeated his enemy.
Each of these sentences does indeed represent a fact, and the relationship between a descriptive sentence and a fact is explained by picture theory.
On the other hand, the meanings of abstract words are given by pragmatic usages based on descriptive sentences. This is where Wittgenstein's later theory comes in. For example, the meaning of 'courageous' is given by its usage in descriptive sentences like:
- The man fighting with a lion is courageous.
- The mother who saved her child from a burning house was courageous.
- The courageous warrior defeated his enemy.
Therefore, his early and late theories are supplementary, and both his theories are needed to clearly define how language works. We first understand the world by picture theory, and build up more complex concepts according to language game theory. Is this interpretation of Wittgenstein valid?