system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Can you be a philosopher if you don't understand certain philosophers?

There are some philosophers I just can't understand when I read them. When professors explain them in class I can understand what they're saying, but when I look at the text I can't understand it. Examples are Hegel's Logic, Sartre's Being and Nothingness, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard's Sickness Unto Death. There will occasionally be a sentence or two that sticks out, but mostly it reads to me like gobbledygook (one sentence doesn't seem connected to the sentences that follow). I don't have this problem with other philosophers. It takes me time to read John Rawls or Derek Parfit or Nietzsche, and it can be difficult, but they make sense to me in a way that those other people don't. If you're a philosopher do you have to understand all philosophers, or can you admit that there are some you read and just don't understand?
gpt
I don't see why you'd have to understand all philosophers.  Most philosophers don't read every other philosopher because they focus mostly on what goes on in their subdiscipline.  Hegel and Heidegger are two very difficult philosophers to read and even professional philosophers have trouble understanding them.

Just a note: The above shouldn't be an excuse to not try your best to understand them and to use secondary sources to supplement your readings.