I think this is a good working assumption; but as one of the other posters have suggested one ought to get a good overview of the subject before deciding and finding what kind of philosophy or philosophers you like.
I find the IEP give good summaries of philosophical subjects at a good level; and they are fair and objective. Also Philosophy without gaps is a set of podcasts by Professor Peter Adamson that gives a great over-view of a broad slew of philosophy which unlike that hoary old chestnut, Russell's History of Western Philosophy covers both Philosophy through Antiquity, Latindom and the Western World - this is philosophy's natural domain; his book of this just covers Antiquity to Europe - and can be considered an update of Russell's book.
Reading the original can sometimes be enlightening, but it very much depends on the specific text; and one's own temperament and situation - for example someone I know admitted to me recently what he liked about Nietzsche mostly was his use of language - and this is because he has an artistic/romantic temperament; I've found that Aristotle's probing of the natural world from 'first principles' in his Physics/Metaphysics (translation by Sorabji) enlightening - but then I am trained in the natural sciences.
One ought to be aware that it's not just what Philosophers have said, but how they have been interpreted that is (and can more) important; one doesn't for example understand Marx as a pure philosopher of economics without understanding how it has manifested itself in the political domain - in which case some political philosophy and history would be useful - plus a counter-narrative to provide critique.
To give an illustration from my own subject specialism; no one reads Newton these days to learn Newtonian Mechanics, with the proviso that when it comes to the philosophy of space/time/matter in which case people like Barbour have and this is because he has a specific interest in Aristotle's notion of time as an aspect of motion, filtered through Mach.
And to add to user Alexander S King's warning here, beware of being advised to read difficult texts by famously difficult philosophers; even with commentary they're virtually impossible to understand without being 'initiated' into how to read it, and how they have been read.