<p>Can you understand someone with very a different political ideology? Even after extended debate, it might well be that the answer to this question is ‘no’. Between political opponents there appear to be fundamental differences in outlooks, epistemic and ethical values. In contexts of such ‘deep disagreements’, we are unable to understand our political opponents. Yet, according to many political theorists deep political disagreements pose a problem for democratic politics. The aim of this paper is to explore a way in which we can mitigate the challenges posed by deep disagreements with an eye to facilitating mutual understanding. The exploration will start out from an often overlooked place in which Wittgenstein’s later writings have borne fruit: Chantal Mouffe’s ‘agonistic pluralism’. I will examine in what exact ways Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism can be seen as Wittgensteinian and explore how Wittgenstein’s thinking can be useful for tackling the political problems posed by deep disagreements.</p>