How to read philosophy?

"... the method according to which you should read a philosophical book is very similar to the method according to which it is written. A philosopher, faced with a problem, can do nothing but think about it. A reader, faced with a philosophical book, can do nothing but read it - which means, as we know, thinking about it. There are no other aids except the mind itself. 

But this essential loneliness of reader and book is precisely the situation that we imagined at the beginning of our long discussion of the rules of analytical reading. Thus you can see why we say that the rules of reading, as we have stated and explained them, apply more directly to the reading of philosophical books than to the reading of any other kind." (p. 284)

Okay, there's this particular book that I want to review, but I am facing some difficulties. I believe I had read it three times, but I am still having difficulty grasping it and understanding it. I think partly is because I read it with a biased mind and with my own idea of how it should be, instead of adopting the author's perspective. I was impatient as well. I did not want to spend so much time on a philosophical book which (I think) doesn't have that much bearing on my main work.

"The fact that philosophers disagree should not trouble you, for two reasons. First, the fact of disagreement, if it is persistent, may point to a great unsolved and, perhaps, insoluble problem. It is good to know where the true mysteries are. Second, the disagreements of others are relatively unimportant. Your responsibility is only to make up your own mind. In the presence of the long conversation that the philosophers have carried on through their books, you must judge what is true and what is false. When you have read a philosophical book well - and that means reading other philosophers on the same subject, too - you are in a position to judge." (p. 285)

Here, I am getting frustrated because three authors are using a different approach to argue for different positions. They all strongly believe in what they are arguing and they are solid in their reasoning. So... the question I have is... Why? Why does the philosopher try so hard to be right? Okay, maybe, I phrased it wrongly. Why do they try so hard to find answers to their questions? Is it true that the questions philosophers ask are more important than the questions asked by anyone else?

 "The philosophers have carried on a long conversation with each other in the history of thought. You had better listen in on it before you make up your mind about what any of them says." (p. 285)

The book is currently really beyond and above me. Should I invest another week to read it? They say books are our teachers, should I invest even more to to be educated by this teacher? Or should I give up, and perhaps wait until I am more ready? Will a time come that I am more ready to engage in this sort of books? Or is the time now? That if I spend some good investment in this particular book, all other philosophical writings will become easier to comprehend in the future?

Adler, M. J. & Van Doren, C. (2014) How to read a book: The classical guide to intelligent reading. New York: Simon & Schuster.