When people speak of philosophy, they are usually thinking of two different things: one is a subject that concerns itself with the question of how one should live both ethically and practically. The other is a theoretical pursuit chasing the perennial questions of existence. These two visions interact with each other but are nonetheless separate.
Often these two visions are forced into conflict, the rationality for this is that either theoretical pursuits are a waste of time or they are inferior to the higher questions and in some way not “respectable”. First, let us turn our attention to the first contention: one may think that there are so many practical issues to deal with in world that such speculation is morally reprehensible. The mistake here is to forget that our modern world has been equal assisted by ideas as well as technology. The idea that we should no longer be governed by kings, or that we do not perceive reality without an interpretative framework to filter our perception were once considered outlandish. Now they are common knowledge to the extent of almost being cliché. Karl Popper rightly pointed out that in science it does not matter where the ideas come from initially whether it be dreams, experiment or visions. What matters is what fruit they can bear, his judgment about science can be expanded to the field of ideas in general. We do not know what will be of practical use in the future, therefore, we should remain open to many different possibilities and not prematurely close off avenues to knowledge.
Even the ideas that do not possess any practical application have a beauty of their own that demands they do not be idly discarded, they reside in what Robert Pirsig described as the high country of the mind in which the intellect is elevated to a greater and wider discourse, free of idiocy of the mundane and every day.
Now let us turn our attention to the second criticism that practical philosophy is of no worth because it does have the intellectual solidity of the theoretical philosophy that is entrenched is most British and American universities. To criticise philosophies such as stoicism for not having a strong intellectual foundation is to miss the point entirely. The test of a practical ideal is in the living of it, which is something lamentably few “philosophers” would ever dare and attempt. Further, in the case of stoicism it is an open set of ideas which can be easily modified and attached to some other underlying belief system that may be more intellectually rigorous.
These endless division of philosophy has led to a pernicious division of the mind where intellectuals tend to concern themselves either purely with the practical or the intellectual spheres, which is itself been hastened by accelerating march of specialisation of work and thought. We see those like Alain de Botton who possess much practical insight but meagre theoretical understanding and on the other hand, the archetype of the university professor who possess great theoretical wisdom but very little practical understanding. The world needs people who embody both meanings of philosophy and is doing so give richer and broader lives to the world. Without generalists we will live in a meagre and divided world in which people will be unable to understand each other so lost in their own experience and jargon.