system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Did Derrida write in an obscurantist way? (asking for people who have studied him)

I have a hard time understanding him.  I'm not trying to insult him by asking this question, but I am genuinely curious.  Sometimes I feel like he's trying to seem profound with convoluted sentences, but I'm probably not smart enough to understand.  Can someone who has studied Derrida deeply share their thoughts?
gpt
I think a better way of considering his writing style is that it is confined to sometimes odd constructions by the way he thinks language works. He is also frequently mobilizing an entire contextual knowledge of a thinker (and sometimes implicitly—in these cases *maybe* it is fair to critique him as obscure, or unclear in a way that isn’t necessary). 

Briefly, one part of the problem for Derrida is that language doesn’t just represent some pre-existent ideal content and then communicate it. Language is actually a condition of possibility of this content in the first place, and confines and fissures that content by the iterability of the bits of language that are used. His writing tries, among many other things, not to fall into the trap of pretending that it can or does transparently represent some set of ideas, without already having contaminated them and related them to other ideas which exceed the “intention” in the case at hand. 

A good place to begin with this problem is “Signature Event Context,” and it would help to have a good knowledge of J L Austin’s speech-act theory.