I am a bit of a weirdo so my approach may not work, but for me, history, conceptual focus, and time are key.
I like reading original texts because they furnish the original logical arguments of the thinkers, which are still in many cases the best explanations. From there, viewing a modern axiomatic presentation further cements the ideas.
Time is also essential. I have to be comfortable with the fact that it might take me several weeks just to get comfortable with a single concept, so getting through a full work takes time.
Finally, I feel like mathematics and literature are equally hermeneutical—the parts inform the whole and vice versa, only, in the case of mathematics, these interactions and clarifications happen across the entire wide discipline, rather than within a single work. The more you wade out and explore, the more many other ideas become clearer as you can start to see them in a new light.
More practically, getting a firm grasp on set theory and predicate logic is essential imo. This is partly because I prefer axiomatic presentations—I simply do not do well dealing with a theory that doesn't begin at the ground floor (for example, many practitioners of calculus don't give a hoot about the logical soundness of its set-theoretic foundations and are comfortable working with it in a strictly operational sense, I however have a deep need for getting these foundations first, which is basically just a limitation on my part and probably why I was never good at math in school, where the presentations are strictly operational—I love the conceptual beauty of mathematics but I despise calculation!)
I like reading original texts because they furnish the original logical arguments of the thinkers, which are still in many cases the best explanations. From there, viewing a modern axiomatic presentation further cements the ideas.
Time is also essential. I have to be comfortable with the fact that it might take me several weeks just to get comfortable with a single concept, so getting through a full work takes time.
Finally, I feel like mathematics and literature are equally hermeneutical—the parts inform the whole and vice versa, only, in the case of mathematics, these interactions and clarifications happen across the entire wide discipline, rather than within a single work. The more you wade out and explore, the more many other ideas become clearer as you can start to see them in a new light.
More practically, getting a firm grasp on set theory and predicate logic is essential imo. This is partly because I prefer axiomatic presentations—I simply do not do well dealing with a theory that doesn't begin at the ground floor (for example, many practitioners of calculus don't give a hoot about the logical soundness of its set-theoretic foundations and are comfortable working with it in a strictly operational sense, I however have a deep need for getting these foundations first, which is basically just a limitation on my part and probably why I was never good at math in school, where the presentations are strictly operational—I love the conceptual beauty of mathematics but I despise calculation!)