Drawing on a criticism of Karl Barth's theology made by Ludwig Wittgenstein, I begin to present the case for understanding Barth as a speculative theologian. I consider some potential arguments against reading Barth as a speculative theologian and against my choice of texts. I point to some fundamental epistemological problems with the contemporary approach to Barth's theology. I argue that there is room for skepticism in relation to the current consensus in the secondary literature and argue for a revision of the "dogmas' that shape the majority of current readings; in particular, I question whether Barth is best described as a "realist" and argue that Barth's concrete theological practice makes the issue of "realism/anti-realism" largely irrelevant.