system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
(Why) does philosophy tend to focus on key thinkers moreso than topics/concepts, compared to other fields?

This might just be my limited experience, but I've noticed both in this sub and in some of my conversations with others who have dabbled in philosophy that this is a field that puts a relatively heavy emphasis on specific thinkers. 

Example 1: I remember talking to a friend (a dabbler in philosophy) about some things I'm curious about, and said I was interested in metaethics and the mind-body problem and identity. She gave me a weird look and said people should start by reading Plato (sidenote: wouldn't Hume or Parfit be a better pick here?). Nobody would say "If you're curious about physics, start by reading Newton" (even though the first thing you learn in physics is usually Newtonian mechanics). They'll just say "start by learning about classical mechanics."

Example 2: For the field I actually studied in undergrad, I can remember the names of maybe 4 or 5 people and their key contributions, whereas even my very limited dabbling in philosophy has brought more than a dozen thinkers to my attention.

Am I imagining this, and if I'm not, why is this?
gpt
Philosophers care about precise details of arguments. For instance, there are many skeptics who think we can’t know anything. But they have different precise reasons - Hume worries about induction, Zhuangzi worries about dreams, Descartes worries about the possibility of an evil demon deceiving us, Pyrrho worries about the impossibility of giving a reason for every reason. Even when people say they accept a view for the “same reason”, there are often subtle differences in the details of the argument. Thus, we often recommend people see the actual details of the precise argument, and thus focus on the specific thinker.