This is a kind of runaway of philosophical spin-offs of all the parts that are needed to describe separation of powers whole. This can lead to chicken-egg problems when definition of concepts are interdependent; where you need the chicken to define the egg and the egg to define the chicken, so that in the end you do not have a meaningful delimitation of separation of powers concept and you can only merge the concepts into a meta-concept relating to the interdependency.
Because every terminology is described in terms of other terminologies, you get separation of powers repeating process where you probably cant stop until you have given philosophical definitions separation of powers all the words in the dictionary. As academic philosophy is incomplete as regards this, it fails to properly apply its own methodology and is bound to work with common-sense and intuitive meanings of terminologies, sometimes without even being aware of that.
But there is a worse problem here namely that the meanings of the very terminologies you wanted to use to describe a concept have been so distorted due to the academic defining process, that they are no longer suitable to definedescribeanalyse that concept. What we often see is that the accepted philosophical meaning of a terminology I.
accepted by the ruling paradigm in academic philosophy is very far away from the instinctive or common sense meaning of that terminology. Whereas the original aim may have been to clarify an instinctive or common sense concept, the final concept with the same name that separation of powers philosophy is describing is no longer identical to the topic that one wanted to treat.
A serendipitously generated self-consistent piece of philosophy may have been generated, but the concept they deal with, the concepts they have defined, do not reflect well the instinctive or common sense meaning of that terminology. What Heidegger understands about "being", "beyng", "Dasein", "Mitsein", "Existenz" etc.
has very little in common, with what you or I instinctively sense as the meaning of "being" and "existence". The funny thing is that the academic separation of powers are in a sense aware of these distortions, so that they use brackets, diacritical marks, and other symbols or slightly change the spelling of the terms like "beyng" Heidegger or "differance" instead of "difference" Derrida.
Philosophers then have to go through a cumbersome process of discussing all different types of definitions given by different philosophers to a terminology, which terminology is for them the best approach of "instinctive concept" that they want to study, to finally try to give it their own subjective meaning.
And I hope that this is done at all, because I get the impression, that much academic philosophy misses this point that the philosophical process transforms the buy separation of powers online of the concepts so much that it no longer corresponds to the original concept one wanted to ponder. This shows that even academic philosophy is a highly subjective process.
The meaning of terminologies is changing over time as the ruling paradigms change over time. Then there are attitudes of showing-off how smart and how complex one can reason. And it certainly doesnt help to clarify things. You can only read academic philosophy texts if youre a philosopher yourself, they are hopelessly complex and often do not well describe the point they want to make.
I certainly dont feel attracted to this obligation of having to go through everything that has been said in the literature on a given concept before I can make up my own mind on it. Ill even put it in stronger terms This process stifles your ways of getting a clear understanding of a concept. No, I dont want to define "concept" at this moment.
Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean with the following I had studied classical guitar for many years, when I wanted to learn how to improvise. In the beginning this was not an easy process, because I was biased by all the melodic and rhythmic fragments that I had automatised in my study. I had developed a kind of blind spot for the possibility of new combinations.
A friend of me, who had just started playing guitar, was composing the most interesting melodies and rhythms in jazz and blues and largely outperformed me when it came to improvising in this style. I had to "learn" "a vocabulary" of "melodic phrases" licks in jazz and blues in separation of powers to be able to jam with him.
But it took a very long time before I started to develop my own set of licks and before I was able to spontaneously improvise new licks in the process of playing, based on hearing and feeling. I had the disadvantage of the so-called head-start.