system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Help me understand the origins and reasons for "Continental" philosophy's notoriously difficult language

Sorry if this post belongs somewhere else but here goes.

I've studied philosophy for many years at the University level and consider myself at least reasonably well read in the field.  My problem is that I have yet to find a clear explanation as to why so much 19th and 20th century philosophy from the "continental" tradition and it's precursors uses such impenetrable language and often seems frankly nonsensical. I'm assuming everyone has some idea of what I'm talking about, but to be clear I'm referring mostly to the German tradition starting with Kant, getting progressively weirder through Hegel, Heidegger, and then adopted by the French eg Derrida.

Caveat - I'm aware this covers a long period of time and diverse thinkers who can't all be lumped together, but there are similarities common threads that I believe justify thinking about them as a group to some extent.

The best explanation I've gotten so far is that these guys are talking about really complicated things difficult to express in language and therefore it's tough. But that isn't really satisfying, especially since many other philosophers have talked about very difficult problems and don't have totally impenetrable language - Plato, Aristotle, Pascal, Montaigne, Nietzsche etc etc.

Additionally, even for very difficult ideas, it should at least be possible to say something intelligible about what the main points are.  But no one seems to be able to say with any clarity what Hegel is really talking about in Phenomenology of Spirit, to pick one example among many.

My working hypothesis is that some of what they are writing is more akin to poetry and hence may seem difficult to understand if you're trying to read it as you would Bertrand Russell.  This is especially true with someone like Heidegger.  But I also think a fair portion of it really is nonsense and that a culture has arisen in which you need to sound opaque and indecipherable in order to be seen as profound.  

I'm looking for better explanations for this phenomenon, or even to be convinced that they aren't as opaque as I'm claiming.  I want to be as charitable as possible so please show me why I'm wrong.  

Thanks in advance for the help.
gpt
The people who get frustrated with this sort of writing tend to get turned off from Continental philosophy and thus avoid it. The people who do not get turned off from this sort of writing often get in the habit of writing like this because you learn to write in part by emulating what you read. Continental philosophy often sounds like other Continental philosophy for the same reason analytic philosophy often sounds like other analytic philosophy - like attracts like. If you read much more Continental philosophy it becomes much less opaque, and if you had not read much other sorts of philosophy that other sort would be opaque too.