confused

A very liberal paraphrase and re-memory of a recent conversation.

Me, in great anguish: Someone recommended that I read Theorist X and I can't make sense of him!

P: Do you know what _________ means? (Names a philosophical tradition.)

Me: No. I haven't been trained in philosophy.

P: If you want to read philosophy, you need to read it slowly and carefully. You need to start by reading the broad introductory books instead of jumping into these difficult texts.

At the end of conversation, P agrees to read Book Y with me (not written by Theorist X but it falls in the same philosophical tradition).

. . . . A week passes.

Me: Okay, so I guess I need to read up on __________ first before we read Book Y together. Here are the few introductory books that I think might be helpful. Please let me know if I'm on the right track.

P: Yes, and here are a few more.

. . . . Another week passes and I bump into P in the halls.

Me: Oh, I started with one of them but I got lost because I couldn't understand his explanation of H's argument on the self-evidentiary nature of naturalism.

P: Oh, I don't understand that either.

Me: Huh??

P: I know what I understand and what I don't.

Me: What? But I thought I needed to read slowly and carefully?!

P: You need to read what's pertinent to you.

Me: How can I tell which concepts are pertinent and which aren't??

-__-