ImOpen, please forgive me for being harsh, but I just can't see your point. It seems to me that your argument goes something like this: Steve doesn't know everything, therefore his opinions can't be valid; in particular, since Steve hasn't experienced certain items of culture, such as Faulker, van Gogh, and Nietzsche, that either enhance or contradict his ideas, his opinions can't be valid. Yes?
How does that make any sense? What do you want him to be? God? No person can know and experience everything; nobody is infallible. Is that going to stop you from listening to good advice when you hear it? By your logic, you shouldn't trust Dostoevsky or Nietzsche any more than you should trust Steve.
For what it's worth, of the names you name, I've read Dostoevsky, Blake, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and Faulkner, I know a van Gogh when I see it, and I find Steve Pavlina's insights into life tremendously valuable. I don't see a contradiction there. |