No more confidence than I'd have with literally any other writer in any other field. I mean legit, I don't understand high-order physics papers but that's a function of my own lack of training in that field. If someone doesn't understand German idealism or phenomenological existentialism, the default assumption ought to be that probably, you need to put in a bit of legwork. It's not a confidence thing so much as a this-is-how-you-learn-anything-whatsoever thing. Just assume you're the idiot and things generally work out quite nicely. It has for me!

And honestly, really ambiguous thinkers and text are the ones that survive time and are the most interesting. I'm not one to buy into the idea that things need to be concise, clear, offer particular definitions. — Marty

If we're to get anywhere meaningful in a discussion, we need to understand each other. That means removing ambiguity and being clear about the things we reference.

Some poetry is great because it has all sorts of alternative meanings, but in philosophical writing unless we make distinctions readers might not know what it is we're trying to say. Poetry and much prose doesn't suffer from this endemic need for specificity because most poetry and prose doesn't attempt to formulate strong and robust ideas/arguments.

If I can interpret Aristotle a hundred different ways, how do I know which interpretation is the original and intended meaning? If we just go with whatever our own preconceptions indicate is the intended meaning it might be long before we're talking past each-other about our own personal and ill-defined views. If there is some useful interpretation of Aristotle's ambiguous texts, shouldn't we reformulate and repackage into something clear so we don't all need to figure it out for ourselves from the numerous possible meanings when we read them?

P.S: "Really ambiguous thinkers and texts" don't seem to hold a special place in timelessness. I can surmise that enduring ambiguity might be a useful for keeping a text alive as time passes and societies understanding (of it) changes... The only examples I can actually think of are religious texts such as the books of the bible, but the bible isn't very philosophical at all, and it's ideas are far less than interesting and robust. The evolution of biblical interpretation has been based primarily around emotional mass appeal and the private manipulative interests of various religious leaders throughout the centuries. If you want to create a world of ideological disarray and disagreement and watch as your good ideas are bastardized into one thousand scare-crows and herrings, then ambiguity is the way to go.

If we're to get anywhere meaningful in a discussion, we need to understand each other. That means removing ambiguity and being clear about the things we reference.

Right, but I disagreed. I'm not talking about poetry, necessarily. But I scarcely see why that's removed from philosophy. Why is poetry an exception? Because its just a subjective and aesthetic interpretation of being?

If I can interpret Aristotle a hundred different ways, how do I know which interpretation is the original and intended meaning?

You don't. Since interpretation is ulimately bottomless.

Not to mention, the authors intent doesn't even determine the sole meaning of a text. That's why there's a multiplicity of ways of determining the issue.

"Really ambiguous thinkers and texts" don't seem to hold a special place in timelessness.

Which is probably wrong considering that Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle - of which are ambiguous - have survived the longest.

If you want to create a world of ideological disarray and disagreement and watch as your good ideas are bastardized into one thousand scare-crows and herrings, then ambiguity is the way to go.

The death of philosophy is when we're in agreement.

Right, but I disagreed. I'm not talking about poetry, necessarily. But I scarcely see why that's removed from philosophy. Why is poetry an exception? Because its just a subjective and aesthetic interpretation of being? — Marty

We try to remove ambiguity in philosophical writing because otherwise we go around and around, talking about everything, and nothing, until the original issues we meant to actually address are long forgotten.

Ambiguity leads to misinterpretation and equivocation, and life is too short for good philosophers to have their ideas lost in transition...

You don't. Since interpretation is ulimately bottomless. — Marty

How about meaningful discussions with satisfying conclusions where clarity is a standard and utility is high? I don't care about endless interpretation, I care about useful and relevant ones.

Which is probably wrong considering that Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle - of which are ambiguous - have survived the longest. — Marty

Being ubiquitous or often misinterpreted probably indicates some degree of ambiguity, but these thinkers didn't become great because their writing was obscure or rife with double meaning, Generally it's because they were able to clearly communicate complex ideas that actually had merit of their own, which is something you just cannot see through a stubbornly post-modern lens.

The death of philosophy is when we're in agreement. — Marty

I don't get it... Is this yet another Nietzsche parody?

If the lofty and braggadocios claims of renaissance and enlightenment thinkers bother you to the point that you nod at the prospect of their passing, it is my regretful pleasure to inform you that Science, son of Philosophy, takes well after them and shall outlive us all...

We try to remove ambiguity in philosophical writing because otherwise we go around and around, talking about everything, and nothing, until the original issues we meant to actually address are long forgotten.

Ambiguity leads to misinterpretation and equivocation, and life is too short for good philosophers to have their ideas lost in transition...

That just proves to be untrue, since we've had a dozen interpretation of Plato by now. They don't seem to be talking about nothing.

How about meaningful discussions with satisfying conclusions where clarity is a standard and utility is high? I don't care about endless interpretation, I care about useful and relevant ones.

That's just a false-dilemma.

Being ubiquitous or often misinterpreted probably indicates some degree of ambiguity, but these thinkers didn't become great because their writing was obscure or rife with double meaning, Generally it's because they were able to clearly communicate complex ideas that actually had merit of their own, which is something you just cannot see through a stubbornly post-modern lens.

Well, indicating its a misinterpretation indicates that the author's intent is exclusively the one way of reading a text. But its not.

And I didn't say obscurity is good, I said ambiguity is good. I'm not sure if ambiguity is always intentionally placed. Its just that the terminology ends up being ambiguous as a result of history.