(Reddit Question: Do you speak in conversation the same way you speak in your writing?)

No, I don’t speak verbally the same way I write, mostly due to the factor that I solely write about philosophical concepts, and most people I talk to aren’t having a conversation with me about philosophical ideas. Aside from that, the ability to precisely articulate ideas are accentuated in writing, as we are able to visually examine the conceptualizations of our language into coherent strings of words, sentences, paragraphs, etc., the luxury of which we don’t have in conversation. Whereas we mostly speak in common conversation “from the hip” and more spontaneously, when I write a higher degree of clarity and precision is used, and careful selection of diction, as well as more time is taken in thought before language is produced. The degree to which rational coherency of ideas is expounded in thought or speech is less than the conscious reiteration of examination of a string of words visually presented to us, we can comb over it, examine its parts in relation to a whole, and modify the structure to be a clearer representation of the intuited representation in which we wish to re-represent.  

We must speak to our audience, and when writing philosophy my audience is truly an audience of one, for myself. It would be truly naive to suppose that an external audience is attuned to the exactly relevant literature and terminology which I’ve been exposed to, and vice versa, I understand the lack on my part to have the completely relevant experiences to render someone else’s work intelligible in the way in which they seek for their ideas to be represented based on their experience, to the exact same degree as them (ideas, of course, are shareable, but our direct connection to them is wholly unique). Our experience, our entire understanding, mode of Being, perception, and language acquired (and its specific definition) are all unique to the individual, and whereas it contributes to the clarity of an author to seek to represent their ideas in an accessible nature to others, when one writes for one’s own creative production and expansion of understanding (and representation of reality) one doesn’t need to explicitly define every term they are using so as to improve the experience of an external audience. I’m aware that we all have different levels of experience with different authors, and that’s okay, but I truly write for my own expansion of understanding, and secondarily sometimes choose to share as someone else might find it interesting or insightful. But when writing on phenomenology you have to use loaded terms which entail a longer description to be able to pack more meaning into less words. The usage of personalized definitions to certain words and their esoteric nature is often criticized in the accessibility of philosophy, but I see this aspect to be of a positive nature. Whereas the layperson would find it difficult to wade through more advanced thought due to the usage of loaded terms and distinct differentiated definitions of specific terms, this form actually renders the ideas in a work more articulate and specifically clear to the person who is able to decipher it. The ideas become more profoundly expressed when the definitions of the concepts which make up the structure of an idea are explicitly described and specific to a certain representation. There are undoubtedly different philosophical writing styles, and areas of inquiry, and they aren’t all for everyone.

Few people “enjoy” reading Husserl, Heidegger, or Hegel, due to their writing styles, yet if you “strive on diligently” and attempt to understand what they are saying, it can be incredibly rewarding and insightful.