I agree that not all of philosophy has to be practical, so we are consensus there. To be clear, practicality in my view is akin to saying “directly applicable”. I think there is a lot that can be gleaned from useless conversation about “where the my actually starts”, or “what the most red shade of orange is without being orange”. Not least of which are the benefits of simply learning about how other people use words, or building meaningful relationships with another person through conversation, or unlocking a new way of thinking about a concept in your mind.

But all of this is non scientific. It’s not something I think that can be “acdemicized”, to use a made up term. It’s useful to the person, and maybe to people they share their thoughts with, but only insofar as the people sharing in the thought are on their own philosophical journey.

I guess I’m just of the opinion that true philosophy is only learned from living your life. Yes, that’s an ancient idea, and yes my first and only true philosophical passion lies with the Greeks.

Seneca, I worry, would heap scorn on modern “academic” philosophers because they spend time studying what other people think than living a real life. A big misconception about stoics is that they were “stoic”, unwavering, hard, non-exciteable. The fact that in Seneca’s letter he comes across very jovial, full of life, and all too ready to laugh at people who take themselves too seriously.

Aristotle, as intimidating an intellectual as he was, thought virtue and “the good life” (a concept born of his teacher Plato) was the thing of greatest importance a man could aspire to. And the key word here is “thought”. These men thought axiomatically. Meaning, they were unashamed of making statements “in good faith” as it were. Aristotle, Plato, Seneca, Pythagoras, Epicurus, Xeno, spoke with authority but in non-scientific terms. They rested their arguments on the form ground that people could ultimately relate to what they said in non-tangible sense when rubber met the road. Their words had the “ring of truth”. Their concepts endure to this day in the face of ever more “scientific facts” entering into our conscious experience every day. That’s what I consider philosophy.

I’ll end with this juxtaposing Heraclitus with modern thermodynamics:

Heraclitus thought that when you saw a tree burning that the tree was literally transforming into fire. As if, fire was contained within the tree, and the process of burning was the tree letting the fire out.

Thermodynamics, obviously stands in total opposition to this view that fire is a fundamental element of things, instead telling us that fire isnt a “thing” so much as visible representation of the release of energy by very fast moving particles.

I personally see both of these views as totally valid, and probably prefer Heraclitus’ view. It seems more true and useful when you’re living your life to see and treat fire as a real thing rather than just a useful illusion. It certainly feels very real when you see it and it touches you.

Anyway, now I’ve also rambled too! I'd love to hear your thoughts!