Sorry, but there are degrees of generalization we're free to make. The more abstract the generalization, the more we miss out on contextual details, which can be disastrous, as you say. But the more we focus on the details, the more likely we'll miss the big picture, and philosophy is all about the big picture.

Your example of theism vs polytheism makes my point for me. Can't we talk more generally about the difference between theism and atheism?

You say outright that we shouldn't use words that are abstractions covering numerous systems, as though those systems were all the same. Does that mean you're against mathematics? That's how numbers function. It's also how formal logic works: we abstract away from the content and focus on certain general relationships.

You seem to be a very detail-oriented fellow. I wonder how that's consistent with you being what you call a "structural philosopher." What's the structure at issue? And if you feel like answering, can you try to keep it briefer? I only have so much time for answering comments.