Why have academic intellectuals of our day deemed abstract thinkers worthy of a lesser merit? Is it because we’re more fun at parties? Or merely the jealousy over the modern academics inability to create anything profoundly original? Or most likely of the three: that I myself have grown bitter over my current favorite writers (Dostoevsky and Bakunin) being labeled as too abstract for relevance.
In spite of criticism I find them to be more relevant in a manner so practically profound yet dualistically simple that what is to be gained from reading such a variety is often overlooked. Let’s look at Dostoevsky for example, any one of his works that I have thus far picked up, has contained so much information that I could read the same passages for weeks on end and get new and unique lessons (not unlike reading a religious work) picking up informational tidbits about everything from the art of literature, psychology, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, Russian history sociology, and above all ethics.
Likewise with Bakunin, I first took to him for his rants about anarchism and radical political philosophy, but found myself being schooled on almost everything else under the sun in the process, as a result I see it more due to call these abstract thinkers vastly paradigmatic rather than irrelevant to their respective fields, and that again their is much more to learn from these types of thinkers than first meets the eye.