In general:

Try to keep things as simple as you can while still expressing what you need to express.

Keep in mind that readers don't necessarily have the same background as you, the same views as you, and they might not define terms the same way that you do. So provide context, and provide definitions when useful.

Keep your writing logical and focused. Progress from a set of premises or a thesis to a conclusion via some logical progression. It doesn't necessarily have to be in the vein of a formal argument, but there should be at least an informal flow to it. Remove tangents that aren't necessary for the central argument. If your thesis incorporates even a handful of different issues, especially if there is controversy about some of them, consider breaking things up into separate papers/threads/comments.

Write how you would speak to a room. The room is full of your friends who are mildly interested in what you have to say.

What are some examples of famous philosophers with gobbledygook writing? — Joseph Walsh

Hegel. But he did it like a pro. Derrida has been accused of same.

what is the most effective way to write possible? — Joseph Walsh

Read lots of good clear writing. You'll likely end up absorbing a lot of the positives of the style.

So construct context over what you know?
Make logical structure?
Remove tangents?
And create smaller essays of a large controversy to break down ideas?

I need to get over a dislike of conversational writing. I am used to reading Hegel and Kant so my writing could be due to who I read. Perhaps I could overcome this by reading easier philosophers.

Derrida looks like he is full of himself. haha

You are what you eat.

Bertrand Russell demonstrates clear writing in his essays. No gobbledygook. One such essay:

link

Heidegger on the other hand...

Thanks!

Heidegger and Derrida are the main two I’ve come across. Both use several pages to say something they could’ve said in one. I can kind of forgive Derrida though as he is actively looking at this very thing in his writing. I still think he did himself moe harm than good by purposefully trying to be obscure.

One piece of advice often given to authors is "Write so that it would be understandable to a reasonably intelligent 10 year-old." Keeping that in mind can help you keep things relatively simple, straightforward and help you remember to explain things sufficiently.

I need to get over a dislike of conversational writing. I am used to reading Hegel and Kant so my writing could be due to who I read. Perhaps I could overcome this by reading easier philosophers. — Joseph Walsh

No, don't lower your standards of reading so you can write better! The trick is to write about these very tough philosophers and what they say in a way that's clear and comprehensible: that's when you know you understand them - when you can 'translate' their terms into ones you have mastery over. Read the hard philosophers - make them easy(ier).

What is Gobbledygook?

I would think it is any language one does not understand. In which case the paradigm speaker of Gobbledygook is the parrot. And all that is required to avoid parroting is rigorous honesty. Speak whereof you know and understand, and no gooks will gobble.

Others have given a lot of good ideas.

• I agree with @Terrapin Station and @StreetlightX - use everyday language to the extent you can. You don't really understand something until you can put it in your own words. Don't use jargon unless what you want to say can't be expressed otherwise.
• As TS also said "provide context, and provide definitions when useful." It's amazing how far into a discussion you can get with disagreements primarily coming from differences in word definitions. Philosophers love to make up new words.
• As you said, keep it relatively short unless it really needs to be long. I often just don't read a long Original Post if it's too long and I'm not specifically interested in the subject. You can lay out your primary argument in the OP and then add more as the discussion proceeds.
• @Baden said to read lots of good clear writing. There is a lot of that here on the the forum. There is also some crap. If you write just like me, you'll win all your arguments and everyone will love you.

How do I avoid gobbledygook writing? — Joseph Walsh

Wait, not so fast. Gobbledygook becomes logical once you realize how limited the medium really is, because to do otherwise is to transform the nexus of inescapable paradigms in to socially conscious vectors of imaginative spectral patterns consisting of the glorious random patterns of which nature has been constructed for billions of years during the period in which the nothing became the something while still retaining it's nothingness throughout.

Another point of discussion is: what is the most effective way to write possible? — Joseph Walsh

Smile, nod and agree with whatever the reader wants to hear, while pretending to be a revolutionary revealing mysterious secrets.

what is the most effective way to write possible? — Joseph Walsh

avoid sentence structures with more than one predicate, especially if some of them mean nonsense, such as "what is the most effective way to write possible?"

Bertrand Russell demonstrates clear writing in his essays. No gobbledygook. One such essay:

link

Heidegger on the other hand... — petrichor

Russell's language rustles like freshly washed, starched and ironed ladies' summer dresses.

Heidegger's language holds high the dagger upon which your and my heads are spaked.

Just try not to be like Kant, Hegel, C. S. Peirce, Heidegger, Derrida, Lacan, Baudrillard and the like.

Avoid the discussion of furniture.

How do I avoid gobbledygook writing? — Joseph Walsh

Take English classes. And avoid taking classes on goblin language.

Language has similarities with music, and there is a lot to study and understand with and about music, and lots of different ways to do it. But first you have to have heard it. Enough so that you begin to listen, which for language means reading. If you want to be a good writer, you have to do some reading - that as foundation; then you can begin to learn to write.

Two writers: 1) H. H. Munro, a/k/a Saki, writer mostly of very short stories in which the music of his Edwardian sentences is very much on display.

2) Winston Churchill. The sentence as complete thought. The paragraph as a series of sentences related to one topic. Writing of lapidary concision without omitting anything of importance.

Just spending time reading these authors, enough time for their "music" to sink in, will make a better writer of you. There are others, but these are in addition interesting reading.

By writing more like me and less like someone like @Mww. Except when I'm doing a parody of someone like @Mww.

Famous masters of the arts of gobbledygook include Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida, and Kant.

What is the most effective way to write possible? Well, you start by finding the letter 'p' on your keyboard...

I disagree. I would think it is any language one does not understand. In which case the paradigm speaker of gobbledygook is the parrot.

May I recommend finding a professional philosopher whom to emulate. One of my favorite philosophers, when it comes to writing, is Jaegwon Kim.

My advice is to eschew philosophical jargon. I would even avoid somewhat sophisticated words (like "eschew". So, better would be: "I try to avoid philosophical jargon."). I try to write so a 10-year-old would understand everything I'm trying to get across, even the most sophisticated or nuanced ideas, which usually makes me rather verbose, but that's better than unclear. And, almost always, good writing requires editing after you've stepped away from what you've written for a day or two. You'd be surprised how quickly you'll dislike the way you've phrased things after you come back to it 24 hours later.

To answer your question seriously: I agree with @Tim Wood and with @Fiveredapples.

I would only add one more idea: put your feet in your reader's shoes. You must always reflect, even during the writing process itself, on how informative your writing is. You must make sure that when you're leading the reader with your text, you don't make him take baby-steps if he is an adult, and you don't make her jump over huge gaps in your logic if she is not Albert Einstein. In other words, your writing must have a tempo of ideas introduced and connected, and made clear what the ideas and connections comprise.

In a way it is like having a continuity supervisor in the movie industry when they shoot footage (i.e. in your writing process) and later in the editors/ cutters room (when you re-read your text with the intention of correcting mistakes in it.)

In short: try to imagine you are your reader, and determine if your text makes proper sense or not.

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf

Thank you for sharing those ideas — CraigAten

Welcome to the forum.

How do I avoid gobbledygook writing? What are some examples of famous philosophers with gobbledygook writing? I would like to know because my writing tends to come across that way.

Another point of discussion is: what is the most effective way to write possible? — Joseph Walsh

Kant is a terrible writer. Hume and Descartes are good writers. Bertrand Russell is a good writer.