Because plain language is inadequate? This is the purpose of technical language.
In most fields, technical language takes the form of
new jargon, rather than the jargonization of existing vocabulary, specifically to prevent this sort of problem. Usually in the form of borrowing words from mostly-dead languages, or appending some qualifier to the existing words.
And
ideally, you find a way to avoid any specialized technical language in the devising of a concept by way of verbose explanation in more plain language, then create technical terminology abbreviating this in a
clear and concise matter.
Edit: Also, my own "hot take" on Plato is that all the talk of "Ideal Forms" is ivory tower fart-sniffing nonsense, as it is fundamentally impossible to show it is false, because it is
specifically a supposition of unobservable phenomena. If something
cannot be demonstrated to be wrong, then it ought not be taken as true, because you have no mechanism with which to reject it.
Empiricism has become so massively dominant because it's bluntly superior to any ordinary philosophizing in determining natural law, as it takes the position of determining those laws by way of
physically proving them by constructing observable systems reliant upon the supposition of natural law to be tested, whereas "natural philosophy" has had
countless instances of such easily disproven falsehoods as the claim that women have fewer teeth than men, because women are less mature, and the more mature have more teeth.
Don't have the slightest recollection of the grounding for the supposition of the immaturity of women, but it's one of those matters where isolated philosophizing is very prone to being
blatantly wrong. The fundamentally different process of discovering natural law taken by empiricism is so extreme that it is generally considered to be wholly unrelated to philosophy, and thus science became a separate discipline that we rely on for civilization to work because it is so vastly superior to philosophizing in the discovery of natural law.
Edit 2: In the previous edit, "Natural Law" refers to the matter of the material concerns of the world, how things
currently are, rather than the various forms of "moral law" or "heavenly law", or however one wishes to describe the matter of how things
ought to be and "hidden" causes. Getting from how things
are to how they
should be is, if I recall correctly, one of the greatest gaps in logic facing all matters of philosophy. Science doesn't give a
single damn because that's outside the subject matter, all science cares for is describing how the world functions as-is.
