I find it fascinating that Hegel, Heidegger, and even Sartre could gain so much respect in the world of philosophy, while ignoring the most sacred (and there are very few) rules. It’s hard for me to conceive of promoting philosophy without offering rigorous argument. Yet these thinkers, in many ways, chose to ignore this standard. I am not impugning them on this point; I am only fascinated by it. If I were to take some of their most seminal work, change the name (in an alternate universe where their work is not known), and hand it in as an assignment, the average philosophy department would not even give it a passing grade.
Again, this does not mean such work is to be discounted, but it must be properly understood. It is one thing to employ a weak argument, it is another thing to employ no argument. In the first, you demonstrate a weakness and lack of ability. In the second, you demonstrate a deliberate protest. I know this was Nietzsche’s point, but were these men incapable of sophisticated argument, or did they simply choose to disregard the norm?