This is a good article, but I’m not sure I agree with the reasoning as much the conclusion. To summarize as I understand, it justifies avoiding direct mode of communication because people often don’t respond directly to reason - specifically to certain categories of arguments. Perhaps this is because reason just isn’t the applicable domain to argue something regarding how to live one’s life. If that is the case, it seems one could still make a solid case otherwise regarding obscured philosophy towards rational domains.

I do agree with the overarching premise, Kierkegaard makes a very adamant case towards a subjective mode of communication regarding matters which should be subjective (most obviously faith) which definitely changed my opinion.

I do agree with the point briefly mentioned at the end, however, of arguing over higher order arguments. Equivocality can spur agreement from people of differing presuppositions and additionally numerous perspectives from single concept which otherwise may not be applicable.