Some say that more poetic language can more clearly convey difficult ideas, but imo the more difficult the idea the more important clarity is.
As I see it, it is not a matter of poetic language but of the making of images. Traditionally this played a role in the domain of theology - gods and heavenly realms, for example. Plato attempted to beat them at their own game. His success can be measured in part by Christianity coming to be called “Platonism for the masses”. Nietzsche too has recognized the importance of a theological mythology. He reverses the order of Aquinas’ claim that reason or philosophy
is the handmaiden of theology, which had reversed Plato’s making theology the handmaiden of philosophy
. Nietzsche’s Dionysus is "a god who philosophizes", that is a god who desires rather than possesses wisdom. The fixed eternal truths of Platonized Christianity, the realm of “being”, is supplanted by “becoming”. A fixed order according to God is rejected. Like Plato, he creates, that is, makes images (poesis), that are to serve as a new public religious philosophy
now the the old god(s) are no longer viable. (Or, more precisely, his Zarathustra says that he is the creator of creators. In other words, we do not find in Nietzsche a fully formed image of the whole. He leaves that to others who are to come.) And like Plato, this serves to mask his teaching for the philosophic few who desire the truth rather than require poetry. He calls these truths dangerous and as a benefactor of mankind he thinks are best that they be hidden. They are, however, no longer hidden. They have led to nihilism and must be countered by new salutary images of the truth.
Nietzsche’s dangerous truth is that we do not know the Truth. Philosophical poetry, a public philosophy
, is intended to displace theological poetry, but that is not the whole of the role of image making. The role of the imagination is not simply to create a mythology. The imagination functions at all levels of thought. I started on a long excursion on Plato and the forms, which are themselves images that appear to be the opposite of images, but deleted it because I did not want to get too far off track. I will leave it to you to think about whether it is true that thinking involves the imagination, that thinking involves creating images. Doing so, I hope, will serve as a demonstration of its truth. One more point, the term from Plato translated as ‘form’ comes from the Greek, eidos
, from which we get ‘idea’. Mental representation, whether we are forming images of things in the world or images of how things might be or work or how they might be related to other things is a function of the imagination.