This is exactly what bothers us. When you give definitions like this, it gives the awful impression that you prefer to confuse people. You apparently get a feeling of intellectual superiority whenever you craft a definition that's incomprehensible. But these definitions are textbook examples of obscurantism - they are designed to sound deep without having much content. Also, you shouldn't pretend that the only reason that you're the only one who understands yourself is because everybody else is unread and uneducated. (My degrees are in philosophy and mathematics, in case you were planning on claiming that i'm not well-read enough to understand you) There are plenty of people on this site who are well-read in philosophy, so why is it that you're the only one using such nebulous language? Anyway, let's see how well you understand yourself:
atheists seem to be totally anti-intellectual. I could make the very same criticism about al the stuff they aer into. you science texts don't' read like obscurantism? that's obviously a case of a discipline that's guarded by it's own little secret code.
it is stupidly stupid to expect an academic discipline not to develop its own parlance., and more stupidly stupid to expect a student of some disciplined not to speak in that way.
I admit that my terminology in that kind of arguemnt is very specialized but that's to be expected if they know they dealing an academic. HRG (Hans Reginold Grum the mathematician) just uses math tmers and drops the names of obscrure mathematicians all the time and they swoon and think he's so wonderful ad make him their guru.
They are totalitarian, they only think what the group thinks. They are anti-intellectual because they have to stop independent thought. The joke the absurd joke of the "free thinker."
I understand that the terms I'm using are obscure. I did define some of them and will if asked. The thing is he didn't say just "I don't know those terms." he said "big words = plot to confuse." that's just not the way an intellectual thinks.