How much of what a philosopher says we can believe if we don’t understand a part of his argument .
The way a question is framed depends ,not all the time,upon what one seeks to know . For example ,in this question ,it is difficult to believe that the questioner 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 philosophical argument if a part of the argument is incomprehensible.
The point this gentleman makes is there could be defects or patches of logical inconsistency or the philosopher’s own obscurity in an argument .Should one take the overall drift of the argument if conforms to a pre-conceived thought even if there are occasional holes ,real or perceived, in the argument .An interesting thought. 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 difference 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 are meaning.The gaps that happen are mere semantics where instead of the mind proceeding with thoughts they struggle with words.