I think you're arguing a slightly different point. I think the original poster's point was that the ideas of those people are editorial essays, with a largely

I think you're arguing a slightly different point. I think the original poster's point was that the ideas of those people are editorial essays, with a largely motivational function. I think that's true. But they're different kinds of motivational material. I think the primary difference is that Paul's writing usually builds to some point or collection of points of advice rather than the abstractions being the point. This isn't really surprising because basically his job is being an advisor. Also, I'd be pretty careful in calling it perfect. Referring to almost anyone's ideas as perfect sets off the bullshit alarms for me. Paul's a smart guy and he's got some good insights, but he's sure to get a lot of stuff wrong. The converse would be to assume that he's stopped making mistakes and learning from them, which I think is the opposite of what smart people shoot for.