system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Can I be a "picky" Wittgensteinian?

I have noticed that sometimes I will take a (late-period) Wittgensteinian approach in response to questions; other times, however, I won't. For example, in response to the question "When does a mass of sand become a 'heap'?", I'd just dismiss the question on Wittgensteinian grounds. But if I were asked about being, then I'd turn to Heidegger; if I were asked about gender, I would turn to Foucault or Butler.

Is my approach contradictory, or am I "allowed" to only take Wittgenstein's approach to certain problems? If so, is there any way to delimit which problems I can dismiss in a Wittgensteinian way?

(Apologies for any lack of clarity in my question.)
gpt
I feel that a lot of philosophers do that (think that some but not all problems arise from linguistic confusions), but I'll stay with a P. Horwich quote from *Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy*: 
> One doesn’t need to endorse Wittgenstein’s general anti-theoretical
metaphilosophy in order to appreciate that some problems in philosophy are
spurious—based on muddled presuppositions and calling for dissolution.

I'd see no problem with that as long as you try to be consistent on your use of wittgensteinian methods (and not just use it as a tool for easy refutation while maintaining other positive views that could be just as easily dissoluted), because there are two distinct theses at hand: (1) *ALL* philosophical problems arise from the "bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language"; (2) only some problems do.