Hi there!

So, first off I'm not entirely sure what you mean by either "modern" or "logic chopping" in your question. Typically, we use "modern" to refer to philosophy from (very roughly) Descartes/Hobbes forward. I take it you may have in mind something more narrow... 20th century forward anglo-American analytic philosophy perhaps? In any event, that is what I will henceforth assume. If I'm missing the mark, feel free to reply and set me straight

Anyway, the very first thing to say is that there are plenty of eminent contemporary philosophers who are 100% still engaged in the project of the good life. Peter Singer and Christine Korsgaard are two of the biggest names doing work in ethics today, for example, although they disagree quite profoundly. Even among the early analytics, you have folks like G.E. Moore (in Principia Ethica) and A.J. Ayer doing work of lasting importance in ethics. Since you explicitly mention the ancients as paradigmatic of the sort of thing you have in mind, I'd also flag that contemporary ethical theory has seen a resurgence of interest in Aristotelian (or virtue) ethics in the wake of the work of Rosalind Hursthouse (On Virtue Ethics) and Martha Nussbaum ("Non-relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach"). And of course, political philosophy is alive and well, especially since the epoch-defining work of John Rawls in A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Now, as to the point about "too much logic", first off I'd like to see a source where this claim is made so that I could see the context. That is a really bizarre claim on its face, unless it is meant in the trivial sense that one ought not only study logic to the point that one neglects to do other things that are constitutive of living a good human life.

To illustrate why the disavowal of logic doesn't seem to mesh with the philosophy of the ancients, let's consider the stoics. Some of the greatest contributions to Western thought made by the stoics were in logic, although they are best known today for their ethical theory as embodied in texts like Seneca's On Anger and Marcus's Meditations. But the stoics were interested in everything from logic to physics, and from morals to metaphysics. For example, in the stoics we find advancements in modal logic (the logic of possibility) and something approaching the contemporary truth-functional propositional calculus (though it isn't quite the same of course; for a start, the stoics did not treat negation as truth functional as we do). A brief but insightful discussion of Stoic logic can be found in Anthony Kenny's New History of Western Philosophy, pp.111-117.

So I suppose that, at least at the outset, I'm not sure it is really apt to say that there is a split of the relevant sort. If (as is entirely possible) I've simply missed the thrust of your question, could you possibly say more about exactly what you have in mind?