Then you have been asking in the wrong places, or simply don't understand the replies (you need to switch your brain into a slightly different mode than you may be used to). First of all, you need to understand that philosophy doesn't build machines, or anything of the sort. So if that's what you mean by "practical", then you can just forget about asking. Philosophy is about speculation, morals, ethics, extrapolation and interpolation. Once you understand that, you have a better chance of understanding the answers.

There are two answers that you are likely to get to your question.

First, the "Rhetorical nonsense" answers: "We discuss the meaning of meaning. The essence of essence. The meaning of essence. The essence of meaning. Blah, blah, blah..". These answers probably simply mean that the person you've asked simply doesn't know, and is trying to make it seem like they do.

Or someone will explain that philosophy is largely about asking the questions "What if ...?" and "Is it right to ...?", and trying to find, and understand, the answers. Essentially it means being objective enough to find subjective answers (even those you don't agree with) and their motivation, or trying to understand the context and background of answers you do not (at first) understand.

Case in point: Was it the right thing for the US to invade Iraq?

Republicans will (generally) say "Of course it was!", followed by a series of both valid and invalid reasons to do so.

The people against the war till (generally) say "Of course it wasn't!", followed by both valid and invalid reasons to not go to war.

Depending on which camp you belong you, you will probably agree with one or the other, and side with the arguments. But is one of sides actually _right_, or _wrong_? Well, yes -- but depending on who you ask; there's no universal truth. But IF there WERE a universal truth to such a question, what would it be? More importantly; how "good" (by some rating) would that universal answer be?

The philosopher is interested in looking at the structure behind the arguments of both sides, weighing them against each other. (S)he will *strive* to make it a question of determining if value_of_arguments(A) is greater, smaller or equal to value_of_arguments(B). As you understand, there's no way to quantify opinions, morals and ethics in a way that makes sense in the real world. But [the idea is that] good philosophers are better at it than Average Joe.

For me, as a mathematician, I think of the philosophers role in the following terms: In mathematics you can use extrapolation to "guess" how something will work in the "future", given the known behavior up to a certain point in time. Or you can use interpolation to fill the gaps in a system with some known data; but where you have parts "missing". The philosopher does the same thing, but for extremely odd graphs (which essentially are arguments in the context of a question), with really weird variables such as "according to ethics x" and "according to morals y".

A mathematician is trained to solve equations. A (good) philosopher is trained to see both sides of an argument, and weigh them against each other. Now here's the big problem: If you don't see that as practical, then you simply can not understand the answer.

But, if you want know what they actually _do_ (as working philosophers), there are several fields. Sometimes, they are invited to news shows to discuss implications of choices made by governments. They may be hired by people within the legal system to write "for" and "against" arguments with regards to suggested changes in a law.

In Sweden, some politician realized that the average age of students in Swedish universities is higher than in the rest of Europe. Apparently, that is cause for alarm. (Don't ask, I don't understand these people). Well, as a solution, this politician came up with an idea. "Young people will receive extra points when applying to universities".

Had this politician asked a (good) philosopher about this idea, (s)he would have replied "Do you realize that you are effectively _punishing_ the (older) people who decided to wait a few years before attending the university?". This is a very simple example, and in this case it was rather about a really daft politician than something that required a philosopher to understand. But that is the philosophers role -- finding angles to questions, finding the arguments for and against choices, and weighing them against each other.

IMHO some people are natural philosophers, and don't need any training. They have what you call "common sense".


As a side note: When I studied Automata Theory, there was a guy there who'd taken philosophy courses, including courses in logic, and it was pretty noticeable -- he was very adept at spotting contradictions in the systems we were working with. We had an assignment; to attempt to show that a homeomorphism to a DFA exists, and we had to explain what it would mean. All we got was a definition of a homeomorphism, and the basic structure of a DFA. The guy who'd studied philosophy was one of two people who "solved" the assignment, and I can (safely) say that it was due to his training in logic.

So, does the philosophers "practical" work make more sense to you now?