My disagreement with vague, unreasoned narratives

 I disagree with the message of never giving up. I do this primarily because their messages are based on their experience instead of reason. Their conclusions are articulated to be communicated, but the messenger rarely includes supporting premises. Never do they include opposing reasons.

Secondly, their ends are almost always superficial. Superficial goals are common because they are highly exposed. Superficiality misguides us to be productively and emotionally impotent. With time comes the hindsight to see the lost potential, deepening the tragedy. An unargued goal may accidentally be good, but considering the number of resources and strain on yourself and others, it rarely equilibrates. 

The means of argument is rarely practiced, few ever read books on logic, rhetoric, or grammar, and rarely do they read anything at all. The primacy of emotional appeal and persuasion based on power also means our lives are not dominated by critical thinking. This is our primary source of waste; bad ends, thus false direction.

Thirdly, if their ends are not superficial, they are often based on unfounded first assumptions, like religious or romantic ideals. By romantic ideals I mean a faith-like belief of supremacy, notoriously idealized on emotion and unarticulated "experience". The romanticization of nature is often based not on the love of what it is, but instead on its conflict with society. 

When investigating nature, the personal experience became foundational for romanticizing nature. This means is often recursive, nature and the experience become defined by each other, A, and B. A is good because B is good. B is good because A is good. I like cake, why do I like cake? I like it because I experience it as good. Why do you experience cake as good? Because cake is good. Why is cake good? Because I experience cake as good. - This is recursion and maybe our primary means of reasoning in life. To avoid this we need more inputs. Outside input falls into this trap too, but the novelty shows a range of competing beliefs. Misinformation is disproven by a level of critical thinking we rarely have, or with opposing information. Personal experience is therefore often misinformation.

Some knowledge is practical, you cannot learn to swim from books. Despite being inarticulable, it has utility. Ideas are articulable, but can't be tested exclusively. So each reason is different. The better carpenter is shown by application, the better belief by debate. This means the inarticulable experience is legitimate if proven practically. The supremacy of nature is not a skill, it is a belief. Experience is a gained skill, it is testable and inarticulable. Therefore we cannot use practical proof for theoretical questions.  

This places unarticulated experience as - the legitimate - means of reasoning, all others being corrupt. This includes most patriotism, but not Aristotelian or other reasoned and adopted patriotism. Religion derives from first principles which are often unquestionable. The derived doctrines from them are well reasoned and articulated. Many religious authorities claim personal experience to be the only evidence that can support these basic assumptions. Because divinity by design depends on unscientific evidence we can allow a separate category. If a person truly believes their experience supports their religious motivation then I'll assert that as valid in their domain, for all others it is unsupported.

So investigate the advice given to you. Prioritize reason when it is debatable, and experience when it is testable. If your end is testable and undebatable; accept others' advice. This might be to "not give up". If the end is untestable and debatable then argue.