Daniel, I feel that you are setting up a false dichotomy. You don't have to chose between looking at life and being a part of it. Philosophy books don't disolve when they leave a school; my copy of The Republic does not seem offended that it now has Brothers Karamazov for a neighbor. Out in the real world, you can continue to learn about whatever you wish, while being a part of the world you seem to seek to learn yourself away from.
Well, that is why I said that people can be inclined to knowledge in any setting. Of course there are those people who, being out in that setting, are nonetheless extremely intelligent and learned, sometimes more than those in university. That was sort of my caveat regarding that, knowing that things aren't entirely one way or the other. But in university is where it is mostly found, though I will admit, yes, not exclusively.
And, of course, there is something to be said to actually living life along with being a part of it. That's not the problem for me, per say. Indeed, it is almost as bad to simply be an observer and not live as it is to be a liver (not the organ) and not observe. You need a perfect union of the two. However, in the context of this discussion, the 'real world' talked of is how people who generally live and not observe term their state in contrast to those who have a penchant for observation. And that contrast is one they often make derisive. 'Real world' is often used as a slight claiming those who are not so grounded in the stuff of life are in some way less real in their form of life. And that is why I am taken to being rather antagonistic in reply. But nonetheless yes, you are correct in what you say.
