I often wonder at the philosophy is is useless and abstract thinking is pointless crowd.
How can you make such generalizations about a "crowd?" What is a crowd, anyway? Does a crowd need to be a physical gathering of people, on the ground, or can it be just people who are all reading something, from their various computers around the world? Must a crowd all think the same way? What if they only agree on one aspect out of a million different thoughts and decisions, can they still be a crowd?
There was no generalization I was referring to a specific group of people who are concerned with a specific issue. The rest of that is nice and vacuous I hope you enjoyed typing it.
The simple act of labeling something is abstract. we couldn't get through the day without it.
Isn't it possible to function without labels? Must labels be literal, a word attached to a meaning, or can one form ideas about objects without labels? Can one think without language? What if it is a signed language, with no spoken words? Is that actually a language?
No it is not possible to function without labels. Labels aren't necessarily literal words. Current research shows that one cannot form ideas without categorization, frame, schema, and typing. so one can create a gestalt prototype of a thing, situation, or action, but at the point of combinatory categorization (adding one prototype to another to form a thought with both action and object) labeling and language happen. Sign language has grammar, vocabulary and syntax it is a language.
The goal of universal law creation is abstract, without it a child couldn't hypothesize that fire is always going to be hot so don't touch it.
Is there really any such thing as a universal law? How is it determined whether it is universal or not?
I wouldn't know if there is any such thing as a universal law. It seems, however, that it is the human condition to chase it. Yet I was writing about a universal law as pertaining to one type of sensory input. Fire is hot is fairly universal
Political theory is abstract. There never would have been an equal rights movement, a democratic revolution, any change for the better or worse without an abstract meta-conversation that at that point was not practical. people live their lives in the abstract and all people in some way or another are philosophers.
Pooh is a philosopher, Piglet is a philosopher. This is very wise. I admire your intellect. It is enjoyable to find someone who is able to think things through in a highly intellectual way, like me. I appreciate you. Have a fabulous day.
A.A. Milne could be considered a philosopher, Pooh and Piglet maybe not so much.
But to answer your real question. Things have a place, a time, and a season. If one is posting in the philosophy section one should expect to find a certain level of abstractness. If one is posting in the gardening section, maybe not so much.
At some point it becomes... wearying, no?
At any rate, while I agree with your post, I think it is a bit of a strawman in that I don't think anyone was arguing against all abstract thought.
edit: by the way I failed in being as vacuous and abstract as I planned, some of the questions in there are actually interesting and I wouldn't mind discussing...