"Until you understand a writer’s ignorance," said Coleridge, "presume yourself ignorant of his understanding."

That is a fair admonition in most cases. However, with sufficient effort a reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand any philosophical idea that can be expressed in words. If a piece of writing is impenetrable to someone after many readings, and the reader understands the thesis when it is expressed by others in plain English, the fault is clearly in the writing. The author has failed to express himself clearly. Why?

At the moment I am reading Camus. I understand his philosophical position and its implications. I understand the lengthy introduction by the professor of philosophy. Then I launch into The Myth of Sisyphus and almost can't make head or tail of a single sentence.

In philosophy cant is a ruse. Sometimes, it is used to mask mediocre thought. Sometimes the author wants us to take his impenetrable verbosity for profundity; to make us cow before him in intellectual humiliation. I don't think it happens consciously. But I think philosophers who want to be thought great intellectuals are tempted to fudge sentences so that their ideas seem more complex than they really are.

Intellectual vanity is really quite an absurd thing.