Can somebody tell me what it means to be practical?

I’m too theoretical, always creating theories and the problem with my theories is that they have no concrete foundation.

Can somebody please tell me what it means to be practical, and of course, to achieve it?

Please don’t tell me i don’t need to be practical. I’m quite sure that if I can wrap my head around a definition, I can live it

This is my present theory

The concrete is perception of an objects quantity
Whereas abstract is perception of it’s quality

Pertaining to experience or practice. To be practical is to think in terms of utility pertaining to every day, ordinary affairs.

A theory regarding how to get the best possible gas mileage out of your car would be more practical than a theory regarding the existence of Bigfoot.

Something verifiable through experience, or experiment, generally provides a good foundation. If you begin with speculation, you are essentially piling assumptions upon assumptions. Of course, Sir Karl Popper did contend that science progresses through conjecture. But he was also adamant in that a good [scientific] theory must be falsifiable, which just means it can be validated/invalidated by experimentation.

Abstractions need not apply to any specific object. And we can perceive quality in terms of things like utility, durability, efficiency, constitution, versatility, etc.


No problem. Make sense?

Also, even a cursory understanding of logic and dialectic can help immensely. I think you may just need to start deconstructing your initial proposition into premises that you can analyze. That may also help you to assess the reasons [experiential/experimental] why you hold them to be valid.

We can break the proposition down into premises. Consider them separately for a moment…

Why is quantity more “concrete” than quality? What do you mean by “concrete”?

Abstractions need not apply to specific objects, they are often a generalized characteristic of a set. But, just looking at the standard definition of “abstract” will show that you are onto something with the reference to quality.

So, then, what is it you’re attempting to conclude? Quantity is an objective measure, whereas quality is subjective?

I’m an adherent of carl jung, which explains my need to know the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

he created concepts and i created sue concepts as well, but i have a hard time deconstructing.

I guess my brain doesn’t work like that

Well even Freud and Jung didn’t learn their trade over a weekend. The most notable philosophers, psychologists, etc. spend their lives in dedication to their work. Lots of time and effort spent in achieving their level of understanding.

In all reality, it’s fairly easy to make a theory or argument sound good. I mean, that does take some talent in itself, but anyone can present some conjecture as fact. The difficulty lies in justifying your conclusions, and showing some practical relevance. That is, analyzing why you believe your theory valid, and why/how it pertains to us.

A good starting point might be giving a practical example of your theory. The validity of the example will generally be some indication of the validity of your theory.

I can say “People love chocolate” and point to my friend enjoying a candy bar. But is it really reasonable to assume nobody dislikes chocolate based on that example?

I honestly think my concepts based on Jung is so practical that it can be used in business to make money

As for my concept, I have written it down in an active post titled ‘Carl jungs theory’

As a concept I cannot prove it without experimentation in the form of self assessed surveys etc

I see ur in Atlanta

So am i

I do not know if my answer may be really useful to you. I just expose my findings, it is not really some answer that I have crafted for you.
I don’t exactly understand what is meant by «practical» or «pragmatist», I don’t even know if these terms are synonymous or if there are differences and, in case, which ones. However, I guess that in present times the meaning of being practical cold be boiled down to adopt/embody the rationality of the homo oeconomicus, which is to tend to chose the path of the decision tree that would lead one to a situation of a potential economic advantage, i.e. where s-he can expect gain/profit/safety of own assets. (Actually, being practical is also often felt as a sort of concealed application of the neminem laede principle).

Then I understand better when you say that you are too theoretical…
Well, maybe being practical means to anesthetize one’s aesthetical drive as well. Seeking symmetries, to structure ideas/findings in linked chains - where these chains are often unaware leaps of faith - is often un-practical. It means not to have (an aesthetical sense of) architecture of ideas/knowledge as a priority - something most tough to philosophers (and, yet, this architectural pulse can be not practical, but still necessary).
It possibly means also to like oneself more as a fighter than as someone beautiful/decent/moral.

You know I was thinking about this earlier. I’ve come to one simple explanation for this.

Those in power decide what it is to be practical for everybody else which means when somebody tells you to be practical what they are really saying is that you need to listen to authority and do that which authority has set up or has commanded of you.

Pragmatism is always centered around power which is why it’s the philosophy of choice for those in positions of authority or control.

Utilitarianism also included. Both utilitarianism and pragmatism are forms of philosophical thought that argue from authority that take it constantly for granted.

As we find out individuals themselves don’t get to decide their own practicality as others direct them and create it for them often enough in a forced mandatory fashion.

Either you follow along and play ball or else…

I don’t think one can have a conversation of the so called practical without at first having a conversation on the coercive instance of general society.

hi guys,

just got back home

Yes, thats one of my difficulties. I have a difficult time being pragmatic. It shines in my theories.

I guess i’ll have to train my own mind over many years in order to become a philosopher.

Thanks for the replies