I agree with @mbrendan1 that we need more "philosopher-builders." My philosophy friends will say that this cheapens the notion of a philosopher, perhaps pointing to the difference between contemplation and construction. My builder friends might say philosophy is useless: everyone has "ideas," the only thing that matters is execution. To both groups, I say: the notion of the philosopher-builder does not need to threaten your idea of either the philosopher or the builder. Regard it, instead, as an invitation to find that fruitful area of overlap between idea and execution, theory and practice, vision and implementation. I see so many new powerful coding tools from people like @amasad. It's interesting to ask yourself (as a "philosopher" or "ideas person"), what, if anything, could I use this to build? I have a friend, someone I've been tutoring for years, who thinks, for instance, about how to use the new tools to create visual representations of connections between concepts that occur in the texts we study. You don't have to be curious about or interested in that sort of thing, but some of you have the disposition and aptitude for it, and I encourage you to play around with the possibilities, whatever they happen to be. And if you don't want to build (which is fine), it is at least worthwhile (imo) to think about the significance of what others are building, which you can't do if you're doggedly refusing to pay attention to any of it. If you prefer not to call this "philosophy" at all, in order to preserve the sanctity of the word (oh, you sanctimonious ones!) then that's fine, too. I had to unlearn my own disdain for the "doers" ("oh, Martha, only Mary knew the truth of Christ!") That was a consequence of some quietistic mysticism. Now I believe that an integrated person has to be more than pure intellect and he can't really live a full blown life if he never leaves the night in which all cows are black.