There is a common distinction made by academic philosophers between 'doing philosophy' and 'studying philosophy'. In reality, nothing seems to justify such a distinction. If you are studying, say, Plato, this requires 'doing philosophy' -- you won't even understand Plato if you don't 'do philosophy' in reading him. This, indeed, is a very Platonic idea itself: Learning about philosophy requires learning how to philosophize. And, of course, for students (and teachers, who are, after all, just students farther along), 'doing philosophy' is not possible without 'studying philosophy'. Both the Natural Method and the Historical Method are ways of both 'doing philosophy' and 'studying philosophy'. It is always important to insist on this; people with less taste for the latter have a bad habit of treating the Historical Method as somehow a defective way of teaching philosophy, as if it were 'studying' without the 'doing'. This is a problematic assumption. Likewise, the Natural Method does not somehow get behind and around 'studying philosophy' to 'doing philosophy'; it requires 'studying philosophy' as much as the other, and the only question is how widely one's study will go.