Source: p 393 Bottom-394 Top, Introducing Philosophy for Canadians: A Text with Integrated Readings (2011 1 ed).
Primary Source: Moral Philosophy, by A.R.C. Duncan
An important consequence of this conception of the philosopher's task—and this is true for all branches of philosophy—is that every man must do his own philosophizing for himself. In this respect philosophy differs from either science or history. In order to
[1.] read or learn about physics or history [End of 1.],
I don't need to become a physicist or a historian.
[2.] The results of the work of physicists and historians are to be found, partly at least, in the books they write. [End of 2.]
[3.] Those of us who are not professional physicists or historians more or less have to accept what they say on authority. [End of 3.]
[4.] But you may say, 'Isn't this true of philosophers who also have been known to write books?' The answer to that is quite emphatically 'No'. [End of 4.]
[5.] And the reason is that the philosopher is not concerned to state a number of facts about anything, facts that could be learnt or accepted on authority. He is concerned to understand, and understanding is an intensely personal activity. When a philosopher writes a book or makes any type of public utterance, what he is doing is inviting his readers or hearers to join him in the task of thinking about some aspect of human experience in the hope that through that activity of thinking some measure of understanding can be achieved. To join in that type of thinking is to philosophize.
I had the exact same question 4 above, but the explanations after 5 have not convinced.
- The citation above appears to equate 1 with 2. But how is real learning only knowing the results?
Consider the subject of physics. While high school students may memorise and then use the results (e.g. physics equations like e = m·c^2), they would not be judged to have learned the equations, if they do not learn the proofs or the intuition behind these equations.
Next consider the more subjective subject of history. How are 2 and 3 true? Does not everything after 5 apply to history? If no evidence exists (e.g. Proto-languages), then facts might never be known; but even if known, historians may still disagree on a fact in question.