In the book "Il segno vivente" - which I am reading now - he even asks for a deep academical endeavour to study precisely the problem of misunderstanding. Which apparently dididn't exist up to 1970. . . Eventually such a study is now being fed to IA language machines and soon it will be solved!
I think most of the problems in theoretical philosophy are not so profound but rather result from the misuse of language. For example, Take the ancient question "why do we exist? " I believe the question is simply unanswerable rather than unsolvable profound. First, Consider the word "why". We use why in situations where a statement or fact and be reduced down to its constituent axioms. For example, If someone tell you the the sum of all angle in a triangle is 180, You may ask the person "why" to make him reduce this fact to the 5 postulates of euclidean geometry. Asking why does energy conserve is asking for a decomposition of that statement to newtons law. Overall, We see that "why" is only applicable to "theorems" and not "laws" or "axioms". For example, Asking why 2 lines never meet if the interior angles sum up to 180 is simply nonsense for there can be no why explanation for an axiom. Similarly, The fact that we exist is taken as an axiom because how can one prove that he indeed eixsts. And consequently, It is nonsensical to demand a why explanation for our existence.
In the course of human history one band of knowledge has been able to answer questions that science (originally called natural philosophy) and Theology could not answer and that was philosophy. The existential questions asked by philosophers have helped us learning more about world around us it has even helped in our understanding the principles of certain disciplines such as the sciences and Theology. It was Socrates who said I know that I know nothing. Let me give you an example. One Existential question is what are the laws of logic and the rules of reality, How do they work and are they based in human cognition or another source or how about this one. Is Moral Realism true what is the moral code, Does it exist? What is the true branch of metaethics? Questions like these are serious questions that need to be asked and need to be answered through serious non biased debate. I would argue the poster of this opinion does not appreciate the intellectual system that has influenced human society more than any other knowledge and belief system.
If philosophy is the result of misunderstandings in language, Language must be incapable of communicating philosophical message. “Philosophy is the product of misunderstanding language” requires the presumption that language is accurate enough to communicate that statement, Which invalidates the statement. This is like shouting in my ear that sound waves do not exist, It simply cannot stand.