The division of philosophy into a practical philosophy and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle's moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. In Sweden and Finland courses in theoretical and practical philosophy are taught separately, and are separate degrees. Other countries may use a similar scheme—some Scottish universities, for example, divide philosophy into logic, metaphysics, and ethics—but in most universities around the world philosophy is taught as a single subject. There is also a unified philosophy subject in some Swedish universities, such as Södertörns Högskola.

Practical Philosophy is also the use of philosophy and philosophical techniques in everyday life. This can take a number of forms including reflective practice, personal philosophical thinking and philosophical counselling.

Examples of practical philosophy subjects are:

--Aesthetics

--Decision theory

--Ethics

--Political philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_philosophy

http://www.helsinki.fi/theoreticalphilosophy/

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jrArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=Can+philosophy+be+divided+into+theoretical+philosophy+and+applied+philosophy&source=bl&ots=G_sOK6ZkN9&sig=r5RjTqb2L_7vQANqZjudhm5Pry4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEMQ6AEwB2oVChMItobBt9rdxwIVzk2OCh35uQLT#v=onepage&q=Can%20philosophy%20be%20divided%20into%20theoretical%20philosophy%20and%20applied%20philosophy&f=false

This question has a lot to do with “what philosophy is” and “what science is”.

For the first part of your question you might find it interesting to look at Charles Tart's work on altered states of consciousness and state specific sciences. You can easily find his books on Amazon, and there are many entries if you Google his name and "altered states of consciousness" and "state specific sciences." The other question, about applied philosophy, is fairly complex. I don't know how professional philosophers answer such a question, but in real life we are applying philosophy every day, sometimes with serious consequences. Take as an example the situation described in the question below, which I routinely included on a history of psychology essay exam:

REALITY TESTING: Reality is a complex concept, as ego psychologists have discovered. William Goldstein, in An Introduction to the Borderline Conditions (Jason Aronson, 1985), distinguishes among reality testing, sense of reality, and adaptation to reality. Reality testing is concerned with the ability to distinguish between internal and external stimuli, between events in one's inner world and in the external world. Hallucinations and delusions are prime examples of defects in reality testing, as are some types of primitive distortions. Sense of Reality is "shown by the ability to experience one's self and body, along with external events, as real and familiar." Impairments include "confused body images, feelings of estrangement, derealization, depersonalization, and déj vu phenomena." Adaptation to reality is "a measure of how one copes with and relates to the external world." This can be quite adequate despite problems with sense of reality or reality testing. As a clinician you will have to make judgments about these aspects of reality on a regular basis. You ultimately will be taking an implicit position on ontology and epistemology in your clinical work, making judgments about what is real and what is not, and the evidence used to make that decision. What principles govern your judgments about another person's total relationship to reality? What things do you categorize as real vs unreal? How do principles learned in this class help you with these distinctions? Take a philosophical historian's perspective on these clinical issues.

The division of philosophy into a practical philosophy and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle's moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. In Sweden and Finland courses in theoretical and practical philosophy are taught separately, and are separate degrees. Other countries may use a similar scheme—some Scottish universities, for example, divide philosophy into logic, metaphysics, and ethics—but in most universities around the world philosophy is taught as a single subject. There is also a unified philosophy subject in some Swedish universities, such as Södertörns Högskola.

Practical Philosophy is also the use of philosophy and philosophical techniques in everyday life. This can take a number of forms including reflective practice, personal philosophical thinking and philosophical counselling.

Examples of practical philosophy subjects are:

--Aesthetics

--Decision theory

--Ethics

--Political philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_philosophy

http://www.helsinki.fi/theoreticalphilosophy/

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jrArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=Can+philosophy+be+divided+into+theoretical+philosophy+and+applied+philosophy&source=bl&ots=G_sOK6ZkN9&sig=r5RjTqb2L_7vQANqZjudhm5Pry4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEMQ6AEwB2oVChMItobBt9rdxwIVzk2OCh35uQLT#v=onepage&q=Can%20philosophy%20be%20divided%20into%20theoretical%20philosophy%20and%20applied%20philosophy&f=false

Yes  it is

Examples of theoretical philosophy subjects:

Epistemology

Logic

Philosophy of mathematics

Philosophy of science

Philosophy of language

Philosophy of mind

Metaphysics

Ontology

Examples of practical philosophy subjects are:

Aesthetics

Decision theory

Ethics

Political philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Geng's question about philosophy could/should be seen/considered in the context of his other questions, mainly the ones about the status of infinity. 

My dear RG friends, thank you very much for your opinions and ideas.

We all agree that there should be both theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy, but what are the differences between them, and how can we group them? For example: is Philosophy of mathematics theoretical philosophy or applied philosophy, why?

Yours,

Geng

Yes let me put it in this (naive) way: philosophy can be thought of as the methodologies for deducing and investigating facts in an area of study while any practical application which result out of those methodologies is considered practical philosophy. For instance the binary Aristotle logic (proposition calculus) is theoretical philosophy while concrete applications such as computer binary arithmetic using logic gates and electrical circuits simplification can be considered practical philosophy.

The philosophy has been divided into 3 fields (theoretical philosophy, practical or applied philosophy and auxiliary philosophy) already by Aristotle. However, the question about the borders between them are still open. For example, philosophy of science or philosophy of technology is practical (applied) or auxiliary like logic? Any way the fields of philosophy are inseparable.  

"The term "applied" simply means "to put into practice" or "to be used practically." From this use of the term "applied," we can formulate a general definition of applied philosophy: it is the application of those principles and concepts derived from and based on philosophy to a study of our practical affairs and activities. Notice that these principles and concepts are used to "study" our practical affairs. The reason why this is important is because applied knowledge is third-order philosophical knowledge and does not necessarily lead to a completed "truth" applicable to all times and places.

http://niyamakreference.blogspot.in/2008/02/what-do-we-mean-by-applied-philosophy.html

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Applied_Philosophy

Dear Mr. Tomas Kačerauskas and Mr. Subhash C. Kundu,

Can we integrate practical or applied philosophy and auxiliary philosophy into one ------just applied philosophy? So, philosophy is just divided into 2 fields (but not 3) with clear demarcation between theoretical and applied.

Yours,

Geng

Hello, I join you my work published in  Intus Legere filosofia Vol 9,  2015 

about the relacion between logics and ethics in Aristotle's works, 

Dear Ms. Cecile Furstenberg,

Thank you very much for your information.

My best regard,

Geng.

Dear Mr. Subhash C. Kundu,

As you say in your post: "The term "applied" simply means "to put into practice" or "to be used practically.".

Could we group Philosophy of mathematics into applied philosophy?

Yours,

Geng

The answer depends on the answers on two other questions: "why?" and "why not?".

Dear Mr. Stefan Gruner ,

Thank you for so clear ideas, wonderful!

It seems we have all kinds of “subject philosophy” for “different parts of knowledge mansion such as “science philosophy”, “religion philosophy”, “culture philosophy”, “mathematics philosophy”, “linguistic philosophy”, “life philosophy”, “physics philosophy”,…, but we don’t have “philosophy of philosophy”.

Could we group them all (except “philosophy of philosophy”) into applied philosophy?

Yours,

Geng

Dear Mr. Dirk Couprie ,

Thank you for the insightful idea.

I am sure as our discussions going on, "Why?" and "why not?" will be discussed naturally later on. They are really very important.

Yours,

Geng

I like to think of philosophy as consisting of three general approaches depending on the philosopher's interests, tolerances, and purposes. All are inter-related of course (not completely separate categories). These are theoretical philosophy, practical philosophy, and philosophical practice. Each approach, to be most effective, should be balanced with the others despite one being dominant in the philosopher's work. For me, philosophical practice is the most important and the most challenging. Theoretical philosophy is a fun exercise that can deepen my practice if it doesn't get out of hand and become purely academic. Some areas of theoretical philosophy lend themselves easily to philosophical practice (such as phenomenology); others don't (such as logic).  Practical philosophy (enumerated above as ethics, aesthetics, etc.) begs for philosophical practice to be realized. Practical philosophy is not just "putting into practice," as if the other areas of philosophy do all the real work, but is an area in which the boundaries of philosophy are expanded, new ideas are generated, and the roots of philosophy are nourished by deeper roots in the world. 

Dear Mr. Gordon Gates,

Thank you for the ideas and experiences in philosophy.

Do you mean that we can divide applied philosophy (the uses of philosophy) into practical philosophy, and philosophical practice?

Yours,

Geng

Hello Geng,

 According to the distinction I saw in this discussion, philosophy generally can be divided into theoretical philosophy (logic, epistemology, etc.) and practical philosophy (ethics, aesthetics).  One posting said that practical philosophy can also consist of applying philosophy in everyday life. I go further than this and add a distinguishable category called philosophical practice, which is not just the application of already established philosophical principles but another avenue of generating philosophical knowledge. I consider my counselling practice, for example, to be a philosophical practice not because I apply philosophical principles or historical philosophical ideas but because I feel that philosophical exploration of the client's  worldview is the most fundamental activity that takes place. I have also run philosophical coffee houses, in which ideas are explored with others in a non-academic environment. Philosophical practice does not address a certain philosophical field necessarily, although it can. It's roots in various traditions of philosophy can be explored (eg. ontological implications and historical connections). What makes philosophical practice a third orientation of philosophical work  is that it involves action and interaction in a spirit of practical philosophical exploration.  I think of it as another category of general philosophical approach not only for theoretical reasons of categorical classification, but because this pursuit is so important in balance with the other two approaches.

I'm sure there is a lot more to say about it and would enjoy writing an entire theoretical essay about this topic. I hope I am making sense and helping to clarify your question.

I think the question whether auxiliary philosophy (logic) could be treated as practical one is very fundamental. Is logic practical? The same could be asked about philosophy: is philosophy practical? Maybe if everything follows from our philosophical attitudes. Is philosophy of mathematics practical? However, the very mathematics is not practical. Or practical?

Can philosophy be divided into theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy?

The answer to this question depends on what you mean by "philosophy", by "theoretical philosophy", and by "applied philosophy". These questions are much more complex than they may seem. Let me put forward a couple of examples which indicate why I consider these questions complex.

I used to teach logic at the Department of philosophy, and I intended to become an academic philosopher. But I decided to remain (return) a professor of information (computer) science, because I was disappointed with the "scholastic" atmosphere at the department of philosophy. The discourse was too distant from the reality in which we live.

A couple of years ago, I bought a large anthology of the best texts in philosophy of technology. The main "protagonists" in this anthology are Plato, Marx, Heidegger, ... Not a single essay in this anthology speaks about *communication*. As if nothing new happened in this regard during the last hundred years.

I was a visiting scholar at the UC at Berkeley, at the Department of philosophy. When I told people that the working title of my activities was "Communication and Control: How the media discourse shape our reality and ourselves", nobody considered this a serious philosophical issue. A serious academic philosopher work on Aristotle, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and so forth.

I posted the following two questions on RG: (1) "Why is technology so appealing to (many) people?", and (2) "Why do Americans call 'football' something that does not look like the game that has traditionally been called football?" No answer was given to these questions.

In my humble opinion, academic philosophy is slightly too scholastic, and not particularly "applicable". Academic discourse has always been scholastic and conservative. Let me remind you that the present universities were developed from monasteries, not from Plato's Academy. In 529, Christians closed Plato's school (called Academy) and opened the first monastery in Monte Casino. Some five centuries later, from these monasteries, the first universities were developed. The teaching was completely religious, but learning (studying) became a separate activity. Things have changed during the last thousand years, but not so much as some think they have.

To make a long story short, in my view, philosophy should explore *the essence behind the phenomena*. This can (and should) be done in every field of human activity and thought. Divisions are possible and needed for practical (teaching) reasons, but the essence of philosophical thinking should be the same everywhere.

Exploring the essence behind the phenomena is often a risky activity: power-holders (formal and informal) may not approve such enterprises. However, those who wish to be the followers (and successors) of Socrates should be ready to take some risks sometimes. Not too much, perhaps, but to a certain extent, yes.

My dear RG friends, your ideas and opinions are both academic and experienced (can I say theoretical and applied?), It is true that I learn a lot from you. Thank you very much!

We all agree that there should be both theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy (maybe applied philosophy can be further divided into branches or different levels?). There are really many things to discuss about.

For short, comparing “theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy” and “theoretical mathematics and applied mathematics”, are they with the same academic and experienced meaning on terminology and operation?

Thank you again!

 Yours sincerely,

Geng

I agree with Mario that philosophical thinking and its application have to go hand in hand otherwise philosophical thinking would get cut off from reality and become confined to its 'ivory tower'. Since human knowledge and the knowledge making process have become very complex so we need to make classifications and divisions but they must not be rigid compartments which practically create divisions in the minds of people wherein their thinking, feeling and doing become disintegrated. Because we must keep in mind that in the human mind originally all these three processes were integrated. It is due to the post-language growth of the human mind and the complexity it unleashed both within and outside of itself that led to the disintegration between these processes and made us make rigid divisions wherein we started feeling separately, thinking separately and then doing separately. We are feeling differently about things and for things/phenomena/issues and thinking differently about them and then doing something completely different from what we are thinking and feeling. This is the general state of the contemporary human mind. If course we have instances where all these three processes work in tandem but that is not the general state of our existing programmed (based on biological and mental software/programmes) minds which largely operate (that is their doing) repetitively and mechanically. Where our intellectual functioning is in spurts and focused on some areas but not the dominant state of our minds which is still defined by the programmed process. That is in the driving seat of our overall mental state and functioning. Our programmed thinking and intelligence is driven by our emotional/feeling processes which are at the core of our programmed mind. So our human sensitivity processes remain dormant and kind of disconnected from our doing. There is more to say on this area but I will end this topic here as it has digressed from the main question.

Adding to Mario's example of Socrates. For Socrates his philosophical thinking and its application were integrally connected in his mind. The thinking he used to do and develop about issues, phenomena, he would apply to dislodge the existing ideas and concepts of young people and enable them to recognize and identify their ignorance and the inadequacy of their understanding and knowledge in relation to everything. And incidentally this exercise he must have first done within himself when he would be doing philosophical inquiry into any phenomenon and coming to some conclusions/understanding/ideas about it and then rejecting them on the basis of reason. How many times he would have rejected and dislodged his existing conclusions, inferences, etc, as being inadequate and far from objective reality and restart from scratch to again reason and draw inferences and then again come to some tentative understanding. So I think philosophical thinking has to be necessarily connected with its application which has to first begin within oneself and then move on to everything around us. Every dimension of our lives should come within the purview of our philosophical thinking and its application. That is how philosophy can get out of the existing scholastic quick sand in which it is stuck and become a practical tool for contemporary man so that he can apply it to all issues and problems of his life and go towards making a better and new civilization for himself. The followers of Socrates should take forward the task he began of making the journey from ignorance/dogma to holistic knowledge/intelligence and then to make a better life (individual and social) on that basis.     

Thank you Stefan, will read up on this new work!

Geng  mentioned "... comparing “theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy” and “theoretical mathematics and applied mathematics” ..."

 In my view, these two subjects are different. Applied mathematics serves for the construction of bridges & machines; theoretical (or "pure") mathematics is essentially a free game with symbols and assumptions (axioms & rules), which means nothing by itself and often do not serve anything. On the other hand, philosophy is always a search for the essence: whether you deal with ontology or aesthetic in a *philosophical* way,  you do this in an essentially "theoretical" way.

Philosophical thinking can and does have practical use, of course. For example, in my last paper ("On the Nature of Time", available on RG), I argue that time is not a matter of physics, but a matter of ontology and logic. However, I do not think that this makes ontology and logic "applied" philosophy, but that a relevant philosophical research is important and needed in science. I do not want to anger physicists, but in my humble opinion, their arguments (about time) often show an evident lack of knowledge in ontology, epistemology, and logic.

This question is intriguing; let me add one more answer, and then I am leaving for several days. The essence of the initial question can be expressed in the following way:

Was Socrates an applied or a theoretical thinker?

He was both, and this is what philosophy should be. His activity was very practical: he talked to everybody and about any issue. But he did it in the way "practical people" do *not* do. This is what makes him a "theoretical thinker", or simply a true philosopher.

Incidentally, I could not say something like this for Heidegger ("the greatest philosopher after Plato"), whom I consider simply "a mistake": a way philosophy should better not follow.

The division now seems completely typical of a school (schole) and a conception of thought that has little or nothing to do when philosophy no longer a noun to a verb: philosophizing. Creative processes of thought have no regard for these differences between theoretical and practical or applied more in a post-phenomenological period where the history of Being has undergone a strong review process. For the good of philosophizing would be best to leave behind these notions and then speak of thinking. Although our academic courses also teach that philosophy is divided into two: contemplative and practical or theoretical and applied, but that we only do it in a didactic way.

Dear Colleagues,

It is believed that in our science, “theoretical something (such as theoretical philosophy, theoretical mathematics, theoretical infinite,…)” are for the being of natural laws in universal “time--space” while “practical or applied something (such as applied philosophy, applied mathematics, applied infinite,…)” are for the being of natural laws in human “time--space”.

What is your point of view?

I have always argued that philosophy must transcend the bounds of pure thought, even if its raw material is pure thought. While a strict division between pure and applied philosophy may be desirable, it is very hard for developing economies to justify such divisions in the midst of competing need for scarce resources and the demand for disciplines to show relevance. However, philosophers must never lose sight of the fact that there is nothing on the ground that was not first in the mind.

Yes.

As an example of answer you may see "Philosophical chapters" of St. John of Damascus (chap. 3 and 67).

Dear Mr. Muyiwa Falaiye and Mr. Arseniy L. Sinitsa,

Many people agree that “theoretical something--applied something are not the same”. But what are the differences which have been interfering our scientific behaviors and how to solve such differences and make them serve our scientific behaviors? This is the biggest suspended problem in our science and that is why people have argued and debated endlessly since antiquity on the topics such as “objective--subjective”, “finite--infinite”, “potential finite—actual infinite”, “theoretical something--applied something”, “inside worlds--outsides worlds”…

Yours,

Geng

Yes, in fact I do just that in my recent book, Feeling Lonesome: The Philosophy and Psychology of Loneliness (Praeger, 2015). It combines a theory of consciousness with a motivational theory of universal loneliness.

Dear Mr. Ben Mijuskovic, thank you for sharing your idea and work with the researchers here. I hope to read your book very soon.

Best regards,

Geng

Thank you Geng. Currently most researchers working on loneliness claim that it is caused by external conditions, environmental, cultural, situational, and even chemical imbalances in the brain, and therefore transient and avoidable.. This is the general position of materialists, empiricists, behaviorists, and neuroscientists, like Paul and Patricia Churchland and John Cacioppo.. By contrast, I argue that it is constituted by the innate and intrinsic activities and structures of self-consciousness (Kant) and intentionality (Husserl) and consequently universal, permanent, and unavoidable. Two groundbreaking articles on loneliness were written by a pair of psychoanalysts, Gregory Zilboorg and Frieda Fromm-Reichmann; he connects loneliness universally with narcissism and hostility leading to suicide, murder, and the atrocities of Nazism (1938). Hannah Arendt agrees with Zilboorg and in The Origins of Totalitarianism also blames the sense of national loneliness and alienation in Germany for Nazism and Fascism (1948). Both thinkers would view the dynamics of ISIS today as identical to Nazism. Fromm-Reichmann relates it universally to anxiety and failed communication (1959). So in answer to your question, yes, in order to understand universal loneliness one has to approach it theoretically through theories of consciousness (philosophy) as well as motivationally through the dynamics and concepts of psychology: theoria and praxis.

Dear Mr. Ben Mijuskovic, thank you for offering us some good case studies on “theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy”.

Best regards, Geng

Wolfgang Schwarz, did you post a comment?

Hi Wolfgang, in a recent study (Feeling Lonesome: The Phiosophy and Psychology of Loneliness, Praeger, 2015), I propose that the fear of loneliness and the desire to secure intimacy motivates us in all we feel, think, say, and do; in all our passions, thoughts, and actions. Most current researchers on loneliness claim that it is caused by external condiitions--environmental, cultural, situational, and even chemical imbalances in the brain (hence the use of psychiatric medication). This paradigm is supported by materialism, empiricism, behariorism and the neurosciences, e. g., Paul and Parricia Churchland and John Cacioppo. By contrast, I argue that it is costituted by the intrinsic activities and structures of self-consciousness and intentionality. Kerrin Jacobs at the University of Gottingen wrote a book review of my first book, Loneliness in Philosophy, Psychology, and Literarture, which apeared in the review journal, Metapsychology. She also works on loneliness.The existentialists of course regard loneliness as a major theme. Camus in The Stanger, The Plague, and the Myth of Sysiphus; Sartre in B & N, Nausea, The Wall, etc. also appear to see man's universal human condition as one of loneliness, Sysiphus (Camus) and Prometheus (jung) are symbols of unvirersal loneliness. I am struggling to account for 4 things: why each of us is universally and necessarily i.e. a priori lonely and that takes me to a constituting theory of consciousness (Philosophy). What it amonts to for me is that I need to show 4 things: that all human beings are lonely; why they are lonely; the consequences of loneliness--fear, anxiety, abandonment, envy, hostility--and what remedies there are--if any--for loneliness.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

This article can be an answer to your question: published en Intus Legere filosofia 2015, vol 9 N°2

Dear Ms. Cecile Furstenberg, thank you for sharing us a good paper.

Best regards,

Geng

Wolfgang: I agree completely with you. If there is a universal "diagnosis" for mankind, it is loneliness. And the "cure" is insiight, to first understand it by reading the great works of literature and then by applying them to yourself. For me the novel form of narrative is especially illuminating: Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Eliot's Silas Marner, Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov (II, vi, ii), Malraux's Man's Fate, etc..Because I emphasize self-consciousness, I interpret novels, even those written in the third-person narrative as essntially first-person works. It's worth recalling that the novel form only came into existence after Montaigne's essays and Descartes Meditations. For me the masters of loneliness are Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, and Thomas Wolfe. My Ph. D. is in Philosophy and MA in Literature but I am a licensed therapist and I have used novels and short stories as a form of self-reflexion (Loneliness in Philosophy, Psychology, and Literature; ii's a PDF, readily available on google). To your question if I read Russian, sadly no. As a child, I spoke Serbo-Croatian and French. My grandfather, Lazar, was twice Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Crna Gora under Krajl Nikola (1910-1918). I grew up in Budapest, Jerusalem, Cairo, and Ankara during WW II (1937-1945) but having never learning the cyrrilic alphabet doomed me to forget my native tongue through disuse.

Geng: A number of years ago, starting in the Netherlands, a new discipline was born (Gerd Aschenbach). It indifferently goes under the title Philosophical Counseling or Philosophical Therapy. The books promoting it are Essays on Philosophical Counseling, edited by Lahav and Tilmanns, and Philosophy, Counseling, and P{sychotherapy, edited by Cohen and Zinaich. I have chapters in both books. It's applied philosophy to mental health situations. I'm on my way to San francisco.