I remember reading one of bishop Berkleys Q&A type platonic style dialogues and that was very clear. — Swanty

Yes, I think Berkeley and Wilde are great writers. Hume is famous for his prose (e.g. On the Standard of Taste) although I find it a bit overblown myself. Philosophers are a bit hit and miss in terms of writing styles.

EDIT: While a bit dull, ChatGPT does a fab job of making up nonsense but setting it out in a clear, transparent and readable style.

@bert1

I like a lot of Humes writings but he gets a little weird and dogmatic at times.

Philosophers definitely vary in style

Do you think there is any psychological reason for an overblown style?

@bert1

Ah,that's a really good point with regard to chatGPT.
My answer to that is, as I mentioned before, as well as clear it must have some power and entertainment in it. Not dull or cold.
As Nietzsche said; I only like this who write in blood!
Cold nonsense is psychopathic! As befits a programmed machine!

But basically they [Kant and Hegel] are bad writers! — Swanty

Tsk, tsk. A categorical statement. You have stated your case, now make it: show us; prove it.

Better in my opinion you had said you find some texts easier and some more difficult - and no disagreement possible. But you said they're bad. Nor am I defending either. I find Kant takes work, which as it happens made me a much stronger reader. And Hegel I find impenetrable. Kant was explicit: he wasn't writing either to me or for me, as @I like sushi observed. And a ready excuse for Hegel provided by one of his translators who explained (I paraphrase here) that Hegel's language was understood by his contemporaries then but not so much us now. And there is also the matter of the style of writing then current. Books written badly usually - always? - quickly disappear. But even now, still, even B&N has both Kant and Hegel on its shelves.

@tim wood

Ok,let me elucidate this way. You say you find Hegel impenetrable.

How have you come to this conclusion?

I'm not criticising Kant or Hegel's ideas, or saying don't wrestle with their general critiques.

In fact some of Hegel's phenomenology and political analysis is fab. Same with Kant on human perception and subjective idealism.

But both could have explained their ideas far clearer and with more brevity.

They are bad writers because they don't summarise their ideas with clarity,but waffle on for pages and pages.

B&N still stocks because of academic tradition, because of the gold within the dross and the fact that many love overblown jargon laden texts and waffle.