[Morality Games]

Words are limited to just images? Words represent concepts, concepts can be either concrete (something directly perceivable) or abstract (which are not directly perceivable). I'm sort of opposed to your definition of what language attempts to do. Language is not limited to the images we see...

As a commonly used metaphor in the philosophy of mind (talking about the Correspondence Theory of Truth), 'image' typically refers to any kind of impression (vague idea) or picture (specific idea). Concepts are ideas, or pictures that describe in concrete terms features of reality. The reasoning behind this terminology is that things in the mind reflect objectives to some degree, so they deserve to be called 'images', that is, impressions or pictures. It is from that context I am speaking.

If, as Helio, pointed out, he has trouble understanding what you are saying in your heavy academic tone, it would be the courteous thing to do to write your responses in a less scholarly manner.

I have a stronger case for the way I talk than Helio has for his.

There's no point in being here on a public debate forum if you cannot communicate your ideas on a level one can easily understand. If one's goal is to "effectively communicate complex ideas" then one should take effort to communicate complex ideas so that people who may not think as abstractly and as complex as you do can understand them. Otherwise you might as well keep your knowledge to yourself for all the good it will do you.

I try to do that when necessary, but there are limits to what language can accomplish. The more simplistic you make your way of speaking, the higher probability the audience will miscomprehend the intended meaning of your words. Depending on their complexity, ideas require a certain degree of sophistication in the means of conveyance. Additionally, the hope is that people will respond to the density of my posts by trying to overcome them -- that is, refining their intellects to the point comprehensive language is no obstacle. If they aren't willing to do that, then they aren't worth my time.

As a side note, I have always found that many philosophers hide their ideas under complex sentences and high vocabulary levels so that the common mind does not understand the irrational trash they are promoting.

So you think exactly what Ayn Rand thinks point for point, and probably on basis of just as much study (almost none). Okay.

In your case I think you may just be emulating the archaic, traditional "academic" way of communicating ideas. Since you are communicating on a much more casual debate forum you can talk much more simply and still get your complex ideas across effectively.

Academic language is the most effective language possible for conveying ideas because it is incredibly systematic and rigorous, hence all the dictionaries, encyclopedias, and textbook definitions. It is because each person has their own private language (aka, their own vocabulary, their own way of speaking and thinking) that they fail to comprehend the 'objectified' language of academia (who are so organized they hold conferences to make agreements to abide by certain meanings in the employment of terms in their field). People usually don't think systematically and rigorously, so they don't speak systematically and rigorously, so they don't comprehend all the vital details and nuances of complex ideas. That is why, if you ask most people to describe their thoughts on justice, excellence, intelligence, society, community, politics, or whatever, you will probably get an open-mouthed stare or some stock stereotype in response.

Academics in general don't try to hide anything from anybody. They employ whatever language they feel best represents their ideas, and as people who have invested the most time and effort into comprehending concepts, they are usually the most qualified for deciding what kind of language is best for conveyance. Anyone can go learn the language of the academics if they are willing to work for it, which is, after much struggle, what I did.