One can read and disagree (that's what makes reading philosophy hard; you want to argue, discuss, counter the narrative, take it into another direction, deny the assumption, put forward another hypothesis or explanation... but the book just sits there, static and smug, plowing ahead with whatever very specific point and perspective auther has already made up their mind on :)
It's the authors we disagree with we should read the most enthusiastically, because they may just provide an insight into what it is to have different opinions, and we may just be forced to admit they have a point.
When we read authors too close to home that say things we already think are true and share our views, we'll let almost any nonsense argument slip by. That's a waste of time if I ever saw one.
Discussing things with people I disagree is awesome!
Reading philosophy books is difficult (for me), because my instinct is to have a conversation, ask questions, explore notions and branches, spend more time on some things than others. It's the railroad aspect of philosophy books (whether I "agree" or "disagree", which is rarely binary), that makes them feel stifling :-/
Even the classics like Plato - or perhaps most particularly classics like Plato - they tend to lose me after the first dozen "As everybody can plainly see...." "We can all agree that..." "It is an understood fact that...".
> but the book just sits there, static and smug, plowing ahead with whatever very specific point and perspective auther has already made up their mind on
Maybe it's you who has already made up their mind?