From reading a bit of proper philosophy papers about C., my impression is that **even the really good ones** have needlessly complicated terminology and phrasing. Which I guess is exactly the common critique of philosophy so not surprising.
The issue is really that people have so so little ability to differentiate good from bad ideas, and you need to do SOMETHING to make your contribution look more high class. So fancy terminology it is. But it's also straight up negative effect. There really is no reason to do this. ImE, the really smart people usually talk in a hybrid of very basic language mixed with a few precise terms. This is very different from generally-complicated language.
More broadly, I think there is such a thing as philosophical intelligence that's quite different from IQ (certainly correlated, but nowhere near perfectly) and academic philosophy just doesn't select for people who are good at it, at all. The people who study philosophy aren't the ones who are good at philosophy, they don't get much better while studying it, and in the field, good ideas probably have some systematic advantage over bad ideas, but it's such a small one.