language of philosophy

in my ever continuing research, I came across this paragraph…
(from "The idea of the Postmodern’’ a history by Hans Bertens)

‘‘Such a practice, in which language does not function as the
expression of an essentialist, transcendent subject, but allows a
primordial experience of the world, must paradoxically retrieve a
more authentic humanism from the subjectivistic humanistic tradition.
It must restore to experience the immanentist, authentic,
sacramental character it once possessed.’’

Now I am sure this book has some interesting insights into postmodernism
that I will be able to read and understand, but frankly, this mess of
a paragraph doesn’t help us to understand anything… it is gobblegook at
its intellectual best…and part of my objection to philosophy as it is
currently constituted…this was written by an “specialist” for other specialists
and the public be damned… why can’t this author who I am sure spent a lot of time
working out their theories, shouldn’t have spent 5 minutes thinking about the
language being used… and this author isn’t the only one… virtually every single
academic thinker engages in such “English” and yet it is unreadable given its
technical language… why not make the language of a book readable to
all unless the point is to make such a book beyond the understanding of
the average reader? so the question becomes, what is the point of this book given
its technical nature and writing?

the reality is that until we bring back philosophy back to the people,
using as our starting point language that people can read, why bother?

Philosophy itself will remain a “dead” language until we return philosophy
to the land of the living by rewriting philosophy into readable language…

make philosophy assessable to all by making the language assessable to all…

until we do this, philosophy itself will remain an obscure relic of the past,
with no value to this or any other generation…

Kropotkin