It is deliberately obscure in very much the same self-serving way a modern philosophy publication is deliberately obscure. The complexity of the syntax merely hides the simplicity of the actual information. Although in defense of lawyers and accountants, their things *can* be genuinely complicated whereas philosophy never is. But then you have to ask why is accounting or law complicated and you'll never find a reason other than a history of base corporatism.
Ah, yes, philosophy. The only field where being as abstruse as possible is considered a virtue. But then, I suppose it's a necessity, considering most of the debated topics are so silly that they'd be laughed out of the room if they weren't so dressed in terminology that no one can understand -- and, in fact, in many cases, that have no actual meaning in the first place, such as "emergent phenomena."
Of course, seeing as academia not only reinforces but rewards this kind of behavior, it's a vicious circle.
Still, I wonder how you must feel about your life when you've spent fifteen years in school learning about the mistakes of ancient philosophers only to spend your days coming up with ever more arcane ways to define everyday facts.
