I am reading the work of Jean Baudrillard. Some of his ideas "feels" right: they make sense to me in a weird way, but I can't get deeper because I can't understand most of what I read. Take for example this extract of "The perfect crime":
Now, the image can no longer imagine the real, because it is the real. It can no longer dream it, since it is its virtual reality. It is as though things had swallowed their own mirrors and had become transparent to themselves, entirely present to themselves in a ruthless transcription, full in the light and in real time. Instead of being absent from themselves in illusion, they are forced to register on thousands of screens, off whose horizons not only the real has disappeared, but the image too. The reality has been driven out of reality. Only technology perhaps still binds together the scattered fragments of the real. But what has become of the constellation of meaning in all this?
This fragment makes sense in a way, I get something out of it, but also is almost nonsense to me. And this has happened to me often before while reading phylosophy. I'ts not something specific to Baudrillard.
I am a physicist and I understand that for some, a physics book can be "nonsense" but in reality, the reader simply needs more background knowledge. I assume the same is happening to me and that Baudrillard's (and others) writtings also have their own structure and are logical in their own way but I just can't get how. Are this texts intended to be read as methaphors or do they convey some literal meaning? Do I need to be familiar with some new and abstract way of thinking? Do I have to go all the way back to Aristotle and work my way up?
How to make sense of text when it's so "weird"?