My experience is that this is often insufficient--or if we suppose that it's possible, I can't figure out how to express the complex idea by sticking a bunch of simple deliveries together.

I don't want to abuse analogies, but let's say that you get asked the question, "Why don't you write a computer program that detects when another program hangs, and then restarts the program?" If I'm just going to give an off-hand answer, I'll say that this is connected to a famous problem in computer science, and it's proven to be impossible to solve. If I really want to explain why it's not possible without hand-waving it, I'm going to have to explain concepts like computability, models of computation, and "code as data".

But it's natural to encounter people with these questions.

Philosophy is the same way. It's easy to come up philosophical questions and hard to come up with answers.

If you're writing an article, in either philosophy or computer programming, you're going to have to be careful to ride right line between simplicity and complexity. Too simple, and what you're saying is incorrect. Too complicated, and nobody will understand you.