I approach influential works of philosophy as being analogous to mathematical proofs. It requires precision of language and verbosity for rigor. But just like

I approach influential works of philosophy as being analogous to mathematical proofs. It requires precision of language and verbosity for rigor. But just like math you don't need to read the proof to get the idea. I understand the idea of an integral and derivative despite the fact I cannot fully understand the proofs deriving these ideas. I can talk your ear off on Hegel despite never fully reading his work. That just wouldn't be a good use of my time. On the other hand thinkers like Derrida are obscure and practically require an understanding of Ancient Greek to say anything "authoritative". I think it leads to all sorts of hand-wavy interpretations.