I&#x27;ve only taken three philosophy classes in college so I&#x27;m by no means an expert. However, the distinction I see between philosophy as a study and philosophy as a way of life is that the latter is a consumer version of the previous. In philosophical discipline, we talk about the nature of things. For example, &quot;what does it mean to be virtuous&quot;, &quot;what is the fundamental mechanics behind what is good and bad&quot;, &quot;how do we logically conclude that we exist&quot;, &quot;can logic be trusted&quot;. While these discussions might seem frivolous and too-up-in-the-air, these are essential questions. Laws are a derivitive of philosophy. Today&#x27;s understanding of human rights started from Immanuel Kant. The power dynamic between the state, private sector, and th people is explored by Foucault. Aristotle talks about what is the nature of the good life. Our current laws and society is heavily influenced by John Stuart Mil. On the other hand, philosophy as a way of life is like a bumper sticker. It&#x27;s like saying &quot;we should be kind to others to have a good life&quot;, or &quot;do what makes you happy&quot;. These can be derived from philosophical texts but are stupidlfyingly simplified. If these philosopher could say what they wanted to say in a sentence, instead of writing a long book about it, they would have done so. So I think while philosophy as a way of life is very practical (since people don&#x27;t have to really investigate it and just believe it), it is to some extent a dumbed down version, that lacks the backbone of hard philosophy (because it lacks the proof and arguments behind such ideas). The purpose of philosophy is not to give someone a lifestyle or life advice like a self-help book, it is to arrive at fundamental truth as hard as 16+26=42. Now whether that it is successful is a hard question to answer. But life style and life advice is a derivitive of the truth. That&#x27;s the distinction.