In the study of history there is something called "the higher naivety". There are two other attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. )Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. (as some say about Homer. They say you can not learn anything from Homer about the age before the Greek States.] Like chariots. Some thought they were an anachronism. But later it turned out from archeology that there were chariots in the time of the war on Troy. ) The higher naivety is in between. It is to believe unless one can not. What can make something not believable? Self contradictions. Or external evidence. [You might see some of Hegel here about synthesis.]
Similar in philosophy there is an attitude to try to take apart. Then there is the sort of reading called "charity"--that is if a great philosopher writes something that does not seem to make sense, to try to make sense of it and say he meant something that is more sensible. (Michael Huemer is with "He meant what he said'' view.))Then there is "He meant what he said" but to try to find some way of making sense of it.
This is how many other issues can be approached. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold. But just right. In Rav Nahman' writings there are amazing insights and other things that are less than believable. {Maybe he himself was saying these in a half humorous fashion, or perhaps not well understood. So you throw out everything? I say not. You leave the great insights and ignore what seems less well thought out. {It is characteristic of Western thought to be "either or." It is all right or all wrong.. I tend to be in the middle. Some is right and some needs to be ignored.
