On Philosophical Writing

To convey a message in writing, especially philosophical writing, can be quite hard. To the writer, their ideas are already well-known and understood in their own heads – therefore they tend to write at ease and naturally. And since the writer already knows the meaning of message that he is trying to convey; when the writer reads over his own work he will think ‘yes this makes sense’ and then send it off. The problem is that the ‘this makes sense’ part may only ‘make sense’ to the writer – not to the reader.

The reader of the text is a different individual, a different person with different views, a different life history, a different psychology and so on. The text may have made sense to the writer, but that is only because he was familiar with it (since it came from his own mind that is). However, the reader may find that the writer was indeed not clear, or specific, but rather confusing or vague, or perhaps overly complicated.
A writers works will always make sense to them (the writer), since it is written in their own words, using their own creativity, and explaining something that is familiar and personal to the them. However, the reader may not be able to follow, since the reader will be reading the text not in the same fashion as the writer did. This is why I tend to dislike obscurantism – because even in simple writing a text can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Therefore, why waste time trying to make a writing purposely difficult? Some say that this is to make readers work extra hard to understand the concept – but even then I see no point in this. The simpler the better.