Ever since writing has been developed, philosophers have written philosophical works. Although many such works are impeccably argued, it must be observed that philosophers rarely agree. Words can be used with equal alacrity to argue that God exists and that He cannot possibly exist, that everything can be known and that nothing can be known, that it is essential to be good and that we should move beyond good and evil, that words are fundamentally meaningful and that words are meaningless.
The differences between philosophers are often accounted for as being the natural consequence of the limitations of human powers of thought. No one can oversee everything. All of us, including the philosophers, choose an entry point in the discussions, and the concepts that we encounter first will feature more strongly in our explanations. On the face of it, this account appears convincing. But it does involve a hidden assumption, namely the assumption that the phenomena are fundamentally complex. And this assumption is totally incredible, presuming that the universe originated out of absolute nothingness. It has an Occam score of 4000.
Wittgenstein, in the Tractatus, offers another explanation. In his view, words are human inventions which we project onto reality. Accordingly, we can never be sure for any word that there is really anything real to which it corresponds, in the sense that this thing manifests itself on all or any occasions in which we make use of the word. As all philosophy makes use of words, all philosophy is dubious. It is therefore hardly surprising that philosophers disagree.
Wittgenstein's position is a perfectly understandable response to the philosophical tradition that he came from. German philosophers, from Kant through to Nietzsche, and after Wittgenstein from Heidegger through to Sloterdijk, have produced acre on acre of philosophical wallpaper. However, Wittgenstein clearly fails to account for the predictive and communicative properties of words. Words we use here and now can be used to make accurate predictions of what we will see elsewhere and/or in the future. Words spoken to others observably induce responses in them which corroborate the hypothesis that these words mean the same to them as to us.
QO has a more nuanced explanation: words which express themselves are sound, and word which we merely invent are unsound. The differences between philosophers are founded on the use of unsound words in their arguments. Philosophers use words which combine concepts that do not intrinsically belong together, or sometimes don't make sense at all. Only sound concepts, words which resonate as quantum systems are strong enough to be used in sound arguments. This explanation has an absolute Occam score of 3000, and a score relative to QO of 0000. It is therefore to be preferred.