> - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, educ

> - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc? Great question, can't say I'm able to answer it authoritatively. I would guess most works of literature, essays and speeches, even at the time they were produced, tend to be a fair bit more complex than what the average person is used to. Especially if they come from eras with lower literacy. > - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly. It certainly does. > This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. It's a pretty simple sentence. What's tripping you up? > You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. No. I'm saying that thinking "pure ideas devoid of any language" is a naive concept to anyone who's researched that topic a minimal amount. I wasn't flexing. > If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why? That's not my intent at all. I'm providing context to my judgment. If that was my intent, I would have said: "If you don't have experience in the philosophy of language, don't write about this topic." Good thing is — I'm not a Nazi, so I tend not to do that kind of stuff.