The problem with how we read Aggada today is that our approach, instead of being idiomatic, is idiotic.
-- Rabbi Moshe Hauer.
From the Rambam's commentary to the last chapter of SanhedrinRambam's commentary to the last chapter of Sanhedrin:
There are three categories of people with regards to interpreting Aggada.
The first category assumes that Chazal were fools. Though they fail to recognize all the material of tremendous human value in the Talmud.
The second category take everything literally and teach it as such, going to the masses and translating the (Aggada-heavy) final chapter of Sanhedrin without any explanation whatsoever, and I wish they would just keep quiet, as anyone bearing any intelligence whatsoever could not follow this; for instance, when the Talmud states that the finest cakes and tapestries will grow from the land of Israel in the future. If we spoke of a man for whom his business is booming and he doesn't have to work hard, we would say "everything is made for him", so too this expression, describing the abundance, ease, and quality of production that Israel shall have in the future.
The second category assumes that Chazal were fools. Though they fail to recognize all the material of tremendous human value in the Talmud.
The third category, and there are so few individuals here that they barely constitute a category, is those who assume Chazal were wise and moderate, and seek whatever explanation to an Aggada fits accordingly.
Does that answer your question?