I am writing a thesis in the context of descriptive complexity in theoretical computer science and therefore need to study a little bit of graph theory. My background is not mathematics but computer science with a strong interest in mathematics (which means I have not heard advanced lectures but feel comfortable learn more). The focus here is the theoretical background of planar graphs. My starting point is the planar graphs chapter in Diestel 2005.
A surface is a compact connected Hausdorf topological space $S$ in which every point has a neighborhood homeomorphic to the Euclidian plane $\mathbb{R}^2$. An arc, a circle and a disc in $S$ are subsets that are homeomorphic in the subspace topology to the real interval $[0,1]$, to the unit circle $S^1 = \{ x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid \|x\|=1\}$, and to the unit disc $\{ x \in \mathbb{R} \mid \|x\| \leq 1\}$, respectively.
These definitions are later used to define planar graphs, plane graphs. Other concepts like topological isomorphisms are also used.
I found all the definitions on Wikipedia and I know what they say. Unfortunately I have no intuition what they mean. For example, I guess an arc is a continuous curve which does not intersect with it. My question is not what the definitions mean but rather what is a good starting point to learn about topology from a computer science perspective (with little background knowledge) in the context of graph theory and how much is really needed? Is it possible to take these topology things as black boxes or is it important to understand?
It seems like what you're getting into is topological graph theory, which mainly concerns embedding graphs into surfaces. The study of planar graphs is a special case of this where the graphs are being embedded into the plane. So in topological graph theory, for example, you might also study graphs which could be linklessly embedded on a torus.
I'm not by any means an expert in this subject, but I wager that if you picked up Topology of Surfaces (which is pretty gentle for a topology book), you could get a good enough handle on the topological side of things to return to Diestel and pick up where you left off.