I completely agree with that but my angle was slightly different. Burrito monads are the prime example of what not to do, but my university course on category theory didn't start with the lecturer throwing out definitions, it started with an explanation in plain English (well, it wasn't English but you get the point :)) of what the theory is trying to accomplish. I'm completely behind the Dijkstrian viewpoint that computing is a radical novelty in itself, but I don't see why trying to explain the purpose of what you are doing is bad.
To make a more low-level example, pretty much every explanation ever of the concept of R-module started with 'we are trying to generalize the concept of a vector space to sets that have a ring structure but not a field structure', not 'here, have a bunch of axioms'.
