I honestly don't think the problem is the textbook.
I have Stewart (both the standard version and Early Transcendentals), and I also have a book from 1967 by Tom Apostol (the 2 volume set that covers single & multivariable calculus, linear algebra, a subtle introduction to differential equations and some probability as well).
My gut feeling is that I just don't know the correct way to study math in general. I have no problem doing the work. But it feels more like mechanical or algorithmic solving than it does like true understanding. There is a difference. I can't deconstruct a problem and think in the abstract to come up with a different method to solve it.
And there always seem to be some fundamental truth that I'm always missing. A part of a proof here or an axiom there that seems obvious to other people who study these subjects that I just don't "see".
It's incredibly frustrating, because deep down I know I have the aptitude for this stuff. I guess that most subjects have always been easy for me. I could ace exams without cracking the book (or just skimming).
Math is not like that. You need to read. And then re-read. And then do. And then do some more. And then go back and re-read again to see what you missed. And there's a lot of things that are between the lines, and if you're not following it, those things fall by the wayside.
I just need to learn how to learn math. I need to learn how to deconstruct notation and proofs to truly understand them. And there's no shortcut. It's grind and grind until it all becomes clear. That sort of thing is just difficult for me.
I feel what you're describing very viscerally. I have tried so many times as an adult to finally get linear algebra. Worked my way through Strang to eigenvalues and eigenvectors repeatedly. Still feel like I am failing to see something.
