I wonder... [Generic speculation follows] Assuming the query was not rhetorical, I would wager that at least as far as analytic philosophy is concerned, it&#x27;s the vast differences in <i>vocabularies</i> (linguistic&#x2F;conceptual). Take any pair of contemporary analytic philosophy papers wherein the first argues for some position (by way of e.g. distancing the position from specific others etc etc.), and the second is mostly a critique of some point or another of the first one. Both are sound contributions. The vocabulary becomes really particular and peculiar, however, with arguments sometimes built as rebuttals &#x2F; solutions to previous arguments, some specific nuance being argued; particular terms are used everywhere. There could be quite a bit of formal language involved, but <i>usually</i> linguistic terms will be heavily relied upon, too.<p>Then, if you wished to be able to understand the two papers, you would have to trace back to previous arguments etc., and most certainly the understanding of the second would come after being able to absorb the first one. This in itself is of course not a unique thing at all, but I think what with philosophers not purely relying on formal logic, the terms constructed&#x2F;used become very specific and numerous; these terms are words in a language and so <i>a specific linguistic framework is heavily relied upon</i> (this is the crucial point).. if that makes sense.<p>An eclectic parallel could be Mochizuki&#x27;s (Japanese mathematician) (proposed) proof of the abc conjecture[1]. It&#x27;s quite massive, with multiple papers of his establishing a specific theory[2] used for the proof. The proof has been presented in 2012 and it&#x27;s still being evaluated. His way was very <i>custom</i>, and this poses a practical problem.<p>What I meant to say is that it&#x27;s probably not at all easy to present some new ideas in (say) analytic philosophy which employ a number of <i>new</i> notions (or just notions under new names). This is of course not ideal at all, but it&#x27;s a tricky thing. [<i>edit</i> expanded some words]<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Abc_conjecture" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Abc_conjecture</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Inter-universal_Teichm%C3%BCller_theory" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Inter-universal_Teichm%C3%BCll...</a>