Hey, just read your message where you wondered why I didn't answer.. Okay, let's address what you said.
It's actually a fair assessment. Maybe you're right. Foucault could have been acting sarcastically. When someone accuses you of something that you find totally justified, you may deflate their argument by simply giving a nonsensical excuse. And I don't rule out such a possibility. I, do however, think that it's more likely than not that Foucault was being honest, and there may be other reasons for why he uses obscurity.
Apparently Leo Strauss wrapped his works in obscure and inaccessible jargon. And he did it because he didn't want his writings to be too easy to understand and share. He purposefully made his texts difficult to understand so that only a few people would be able to unlock their true meaning. This may also be true of poetry.
In the end, we assume that communication is a neutral endeavor but it need not be so. We may, by claiming that it ought to be clear and transparent, assign to it a democratic character (de facto) when no such quality exists. In other words, language does not have to be clear. It can be obscure or difficult or mysterious or puzzling, depending on the purpose of the author.
In response to your second post, my claim about philosophy is based on a common sense observation, nothing more. I am not citing an authority nor do I want to. My point is simply this: language can be anything it wants (obscure, simple, whatever) and so can philosophical language (if we are being extra precise). But if someone is trying to explicitly challenge a set of ideas or compel another person to accept their ideas, then the person making the argument needs to be as coherent as possible, in my opinion, so that they can get a fair response.
Right now, I am addressing you, a stranger on the internet. I made an argument. You challenged it. I could very easily, without the slightest difficulty, communicate a vague answer to you. And if I did it skillfully enough, such an answer may even impress you. But it's not an ethical principle that I choose to follow.
I think I owe you an honest answer because you asked a fair question. So, in good faith, I won't try to confuse you. That's it. That's my whole argument. I simply expect the same "good faith" from philosophers. Again, I'm not compelling anyone to do anything. I don't think this should be a law. It's just my opinion about how philosophy, when used in discourse, ought to be. It's a personal judgment that is rooted in pragmatic reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do I need to cite an authority for you to take the argument seriously? No. (philosophical fallacy: argument from authority).
In summary, there are multiple reasons why someone would purposefully be vague. But I've read enough from French philosophers to conclude that they are being more vague than they need to be, and I would appreciate it if they wrote more plainly. Some people agree. Some don't.
