How much can we believe of what a philosopher says if we cannot understand a pa

rt of his argument?

The way a question is framed depends ,not all the time,upon what one seeks to kn
ow . For example ,in this question ,it is difficult to believe that the question
er actually wants to know how much one can believe of what the philosopher says.
Probably he wants to know how one should evaluate the effectiveness of a philoso
phical argument if a part of the argument is incomprehensible.
The point this gentleman makes is there could be defects or patches of logical i
nconsistency or the philosopherâ s own obscurity in an argument .Should one take the
overall drift of the argument if conforms to a pre-conceived thought even if the
re are occasional holes ,real or perceived, in the argument .An interesting thou
ght. A reading of the Hindu philosophy (Vedanta) will give you such a feeling .
The basic argument remains the same while the words go on .There is hardly a dif
ference in thoughts and words as though words cease to be vehicles for thoughts
and have a purpose of their own apart from conveying meaning.Words themselves ar
e meaning.The gaps that happen are mere semantics where instead of the mind proc
eeding with thoughts they struggle with words.