I suggest not, by giving a counterexample in a valid ethics with which other ethics should probably find common ground. (So I am disapproving of the superficial reading of Kant, with Kant: True duties do not ultimately conflict.)
Consider the generations of women who were just fine with not being allowed to learn to read, and who were fully invested in simply making their family and community function well, without theorizing about it or seeking guidance from farther away, instead relying upon their husbands and their civil authorities to do so. Do you consider their position immoral?
Even if you see this as oppression and not a choice, this becomes "blaming the victim". But it is not obvious this is oppression at all, at a certain level of cultural stability (even if that level is stagnation). However feminist one wishes to be, traditional female roles should remain an option as long as they do not put others into roles they would not choose. So it may be laudable to expand the self, but to make it obligatory is disrespectful.
If you look at things from a care-based ethics, such as Gilligan's, self-improvement only matters if it renders you better able to support those interdependent with you or to help you care more for yourself.
In a complex and quickly changing world this means that you need to handle information as it becomes relevant. But it places no obligation on you to reach out and find ways to be different, much less 'better' in this specific way, unless it is obviously productive.
It is fully reasonable, in an interdependent situation, to farm out the theoretical work that will defend your community against being overtaken or outstripped by other communities. Someone has to do this, but it can be part of a given role, which you do not need to serve. (And at some level it remains such: we do not all need to really understand even the most basic aspects of the physics that makes our nuclear arsenal work. It is just fun.)
Since it is implicitly a form of defense, it logically falls into the male role when the gender-role structure is traditional, and in many very traditional societies if is only a role for men of the potentially managerial classes, or particularly for the class of men who will advise others. (To the degree this is still our society, we have physicists.)
In a modern society driven by Enlightenment principles, we are all, theoretically, members of the single, potentially managing, class. But that is largely a formal pretense. From a more post-modern, multicultural point of view, it is logical to cultivate various subcultures and for each of us to choose a balance between the theoretical standards of the dominant society, and the known standards of your own.
So any part of our society is free to act in traditional ways, as long as they do not endanger the whole. This traditional role of only applying knowledge and not developing it is, therefore, open to us, and should not be disparaged.