Yeah but the thing is that delusion and this kind of stuff inspires a lot of people, and sometimes it's good to sell trash to the ignorant masses in order to lead or control them.

I don't say this very often so excuse me but, what the fuck are you talking about?

I'm not sure if what your saying is more sad (but wrong) or preposterous.

I think Steve makes a rational argument... Inspiration can come from a wide variety of sources. It would be hard to rule out one source (in this case delusion). If so (excluding one inspiration over another) it would constant as a biased based selection from a source of inspiration. Also inspiration can come from tangible as well as intangible sources.
Then you would have to ask what makes one inspiration greater than another? What makes someones sense of perceived life more justifiable than anyone elses??
Ryan, Rational people do rational things. I think this article aims towards those type of people. I know what you are trying to get at and you do make a lot of sense in that regard.

I never liked the Alchemist. It's not real. It's a good story, just like the Bible, yet people must not enjoy their own surroundings (or selves) to be looking too much into these "inspirational" "teachings." The moral of "the treasure is where you are", eh, it's the journey of life that counts. And it doesn't matter where you go. Go nowhere, as long as you enjoy it and self-attain.

As for Steve, how would it ever turn beneficial to sell "trash to the ignorant masses in order to lead or control them?" Control them from what or for what purpose? Coehlo definitely would not agree with your assessment as that's not his philosophy.

Thank God. I was beginning to wonder if anybody else thought Paulo Coelho's writing was lame as fuck.

Dude I 100% disagree with you for a variety of reasons, but think about the first quote in the context of Coelho's life: in pursuing his dream as a writer he was kidnapped and tortured by a paramilitary group in Brazil. After that ordeal, he decided to stop becoming a writer and was a music exec, where he lived a relatively boring life. He stayed that way until he met his master "J", who inspired him to try and become a writer again.

I'm not saying that everything he writes is delivered from above, but to call Coelho a pseduo-intellectual is a tad harsh.

Something like "The Alchemist" can have a very positive effect and inspire someone to get shit done, but without the hard work that quote might be better off found in a fortune cookie.

Not that I disagree with you statements, butI've always had an issue with the term pseudo-intellectual. I'm curious what your definition of it is, and what to you proves definitively that a person is a pseudo-intellectual?

To me it's always kind seemed like saying "They're stupid but they use big words."

I think that's exactly what it means. When you really think about what Coehlo does minus the stuff about 'energy' and 'spirits' and 'dreams' and 'the heart' you realize there's not much there.

To me a pseudo-intellectual is someone who wants so hard to be thought of as smart but aren't willing to take the risk of saying something honest or real or new. So they say whatever one else says but cloud it with extra words.

Paulo is Steven Pressfield without the balls to write The War of Art - a book that retroactively eliminates any lame pontificating from his other books.

More stoic/existentialist stuff. Sure, I might not be special... but can I take that chance?

Come on, how is Coelho speaking with exaggerated authority? He's walked the walk better than most. Do you have beef with all authors who try to send a message through a story or what?

Paulo sends what I would consider VERY important and powerful messages about life through metaphor and story, but how does it make it pontification? Just because he doesn't write it straight up like Pressfield wrote The War of Art doesn't make it any less meaningful or relevant.

Read Eleven Minutes, read Veronika Decides to Die. The first communicates some pretty poignant things about relationships and love; the second does a great job of emphasizing the importance of empathy. Yet at the base of it is Coelho writing about his experiences and trying to share his thoughts with the reader. How is this pseudo-intellectualism?

Shit, I wish I had found this before I posted:

"First of all, I don't think my books fill other people's emptiness. This would suggest that I'm giving people answers about their lives and this couldn't be more removed from the aim of my books."

- Paulo Coelho

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2008/09/24/todays-question-by-aart-hilal-167/

Ryan - I hate to be the one to break it to you - there is no afterlife, all this flowery spiritual stuff is literally false and the rest is just fantasy. There are plenty of authors dealing with the NOW and the WHAT honestly, which is what you should be trying to do on a daily basis.

Just keep this in the back of your mind. In a year maybe or longer, when you've read more and done more, I think you'll reconsider.

I'm not sure if we're just talking at one another or what...but that's not what I meant at all. Yeah, Coelho's couching truths through metaphors, but does that make them any less true or real? I'm not talking about life after death, I mean the here and now.

Ryan - you're probably right, but at the bottom of it all isn't it still a complete and utter mystery?

I feel the same way about Coelho's writing as I do about claims of an afterlife: it's probably bullshit, but I accept that I could be overwhelmingly wrong.

Add at top of page: "The Secrets to Manifesting Your Destiny" hahaha.

The quote is says typical horseshit for idiots. Reading about what to do to make life good instead of doing it--like jerking off but much less fun--the pervasive idea is that life either can or should be easy. That tragedy is written on the second page of the Bible and the result: life is not easy. God to Adam: GTFO and till.

And where there is shit there are flies. It is better to just steer clear of the whole pile.

>> I hate to be the one to break it to you - there is no afterlife

You know this for sure? What's your reasoning? I'm curious.

(Note: I'm not religious and this is not a loaded question)

Irregardless of the existance of an afterlife, although I subscribe to the thought of none existing, the here and now is what is important. While the future is equally important, it is the policies of now that lead to then, hence deserving the spotlight of any discussion.

delusion occurs when a dream fails to materialise, when a person fails in persistance to see it through. i believe anyone who did something great started with a dream and to the rest of us it seemed like delusion or an ego trip but thats what it takes, going against the norm even if u risk ur own sanity in order to fulfill ur dream. It becomes delusional once you start believing you cant do it.

there is no reasoning about an afterlife or wheather God exists, its all about faith, so people stop trying to work your way around it, there is no logic. just pray and offer yourself to God completely, and then believe and have faith (100%) and you can go through anythin, do anything and the after life is just but a by the way - God has a plan u dont have to worry about whather dead really means dead. Ijust got religious 2 months ago -i had the same damb questions

get your facts straight first ...once you actually have information to back up your argument then talk. Manifest in context of the 1800's when it happened was ok. They believed it was their god given right and back then the bible was interpreted directly so when the bible says "we are god's people and we must move west" they think that so learn before you speak.