I take your point, and you make a fair argument, but I don’t agree. I think that language is problematic enough. Misunderstandings are common enough even when language is simplified and clear. Most of the time, it’s really hard for us to understand one another.

In some domains, obscurity is permissible. Poetry, for example, is not supposed to be clear. Fiction doesn’t have to be clear either. But philosophy should be as clear as possible.

Because with philosophy, you are not trying to evoke ideas or emotions. You are trying to either break down a structure or build up a structure. If you are trying to attack an existing structure (ideology, precept, argument), then you need to demonstrate why your point of view is superior. You don’t get brownie points for being cute and confusing. You only hit your target if your message contains minimal ambiguity is logically consistent. This isn’t a debate between Romanticism and Enlightenment, or between rationality and irrationality. This is about coherence. You can argue all you want that rationality is overvalued, but that’s very different from saying that coherence is overvalued. Without coherence, there will be no reason to consider breaking down an existing structure, and certainly no reason for building a new one — how can I accept an argument I don’t even understand?

We need to be coherent so that we can make our own arguments subservient to the force of reason and to the facts. If we are obscure, we immunize ourselves from scrutiny. Hardly a respectable and honorable strategy.

When Foucault or Baudrillard use obscure language, they are more likely to be misinterpreted. Therefore, they are less likely to be debunked or critiqued.

Again, it’s a cowardly strategy, and it’s unlikely to benefit anyone, other than perhaps provide a sense of pleasure to a small group of pompous "intellectuals" who enjoy pretending like they understand each other.