If you have the wit and intelligence to absorb Derrida or Heidegger then you certainly have the wit and intelligence to absorb mathematics or formal logic. One doesn't have to absorb all of the technical apparatus or machinary to become cognisant of its value or to appreciate how it works. Certainly one thing that militates against it is poor exposition; but this charge can be equally put towards learning what Heidegger or Derrida is about - or even Kant.
One does not have to understand how to solve a PDE, a differential equation or the technicalities of Celestial Mechanics to understand the ontology of Physics, or the niceties of Model Theory to understand Godels Theorem or is importance in the notion of truth in its analytic guise.
One might note here that even very good mathematicians are aware of the huge investments of time and effort that it takes to learn mathematics properly (for example Voevodsy - a Field Medallist said exactly this in an interview) and what it means for the continuation of mathematics as a tradition; but then they are in the business of creating and advancing mathematical understanding and that is a very different proposition from philosophy.
Simone Weil, who I would place in the continental tradition, for example had a good understanding of mathematics (her brother was a famous geometer) but in her work there is no mathematics in the mathematical sense; in the sense of rigourous thinking, yes.
High school/college mathematics give very little indication of what mathematics or physics is; it downplays the role of insight and emphasises solving - this is the order of an algorithm or a recipe: One does something in a certain order and one obtains a certain result.
Here is a passage in Liberty & Oppression by Simoe Weil that demonstrates her understanding of the sciences in making her argument:
Nature, which is a mirror of the divine truths, offers us everywhere
an image of this paradox. Catalysts, bacteria are examples of it. Compared
with a solid body, a point is something infinitely small. Yet, in
each body, there is one point which predominates over the entire mass,
for if the point is supported the body does not fall; that point is the
centre of gravity.
But a point thus supported only prevents a mass from falling if the
mass is disposed symmetrically around it, or if the asymmetry in it has
certain proportions. Yeast only makes the dough rise if it is mixed with
it. The catalyst only acts when in contact with the reactive elements. In
the same way there exist certain material conditions for the supernatural
operation of the divine that is present on earth in the form of
something infinitely small.
The wretchedness of our condition subjects human nature to a
moral form of gravity that is constantly pulling it downwards, towards
evil, towards a total submission to force. “And God saw . . . that every
imagination of the thoughts of his [man’s] heart was only evil continually.”
It is this gravity which forces man, on the one hand, to lose half
his soul, according to an ancient proverb, the day he becomes a slave,
and, on the other hand, to command always, according to the words
quoted by Thucydides, wherever he has the power to do so.
In the same way as ordinary gravity, it has its laws. When studying them, one
cannot be too cold-blooded, lucid, cynical. In this sense, to this extent,
one must be a materialist. However, an architect not only studies falling bodies, but also the conditions for equilibrium. The true knowledge of social mechanics
implies that of the conditions under which the supernatural operation
of an infinitely small quantity of pure good, placed at the right point,
can neutralize gravity.
Those who deny the reality of the supernatural truly resemble blind
men. Light, too, exerts no pressure, has no weight; but by its means the
plants and trees reach towards the sky in spite of gravity. We do not eat
it; but the seeds and fruits that we eat would not ripen without it.
Here, she mixes what would now be called Newtonian Mechanics & Biology but for the purposes of this passage would be better called what Newton called it - that is Natural Philosophy - the Philosophy of Nature in its concrete manifestations; it suggests given the division between continental & analytic philosophy that it is this tradition that needs reinvigorating.