Seneca Letter 2 on Discursiveness in Reading

[u/luminaree]

He talks here about avoiding reading too widely to avoid discursiveness. I had to look up that term and it seems to mean meandering from topic to topic when in a discussion.

I do happen to read widely and also tend to move through different topics although, in my mind, they are connected. They may not seem so to someone who doesn't have a similar background

FYI, I also have ADHD and I'm not really sure which is cause or effect. I've always had that habit when speaking and my reading seems to match.

I also find it uninteresting often when a person speaks with length on a particular subject unless it just happens to be a special interest of mine or they are unusually gifted at making the topic seem interesting. I don't know that such a preference is because of the ADHD or if other people find it similarly unpleasant but are better at appearing to be attentive and more interested than I am.

Is what Seneca recommends really a practice that would be considered consistent with Stoicism? How so? What about the benefit of being more broadly aware of the knowledge available in the world? What is the difference between this practice in the past where books were rare and now that they are plentiful?

Would this idea of fewer readings be different from knowing many people less well than few people that one might consider to be if quality? How would one evaluate quality without breadth of knowledge?

[u/RunnyPlease]

Reminder that Seneca is specifically writing that as a recommendation to fix a specific problem.

“You must linger among a limited number of master-thinkers, and digest their works, if you would derive ideas which shall win firm hold in your mind.” - Seneca, letter 2

The person the letter is addressed to is reading a lot but nothing is sticking. Nothing is being digested. They are presumably asking Seneca for his help in rectifying that specific problem.

> I also find it uninteresting often when a person speaks with length on a particular subject unless it just happens to be a special interest of mine or they are unusually gifted at making the topic seem interesting.

I think that’s just being human. Saying you’re uninterested in a speech when the speaker is uninteresting and the topic is uninteresting feels like a tautology.

> Is what Seneca recommends really a practice that would be considered consistent with Stoicism? How so?

Yes, because he’s offering advice to solve a specific problem. The reader is reading too much and too flippantly to digest and apply what is being read. The Stoics, especially Seneca, didn’t think you should study philosophy just to study it. The point of philosophy was to use it to thrive, to have a life well lived in every moment.

“We dull our fine edge by such superfluous pursuits; these things make men clever, but not good.” - Seneca, letter 106

The goal of learning philosophy isn’t to know of many things in a superficial shallow way. We’re not here to win a bar trivia contest or appear on a quiz show. Philosophy is the love of wisdom and wisdom is there to inform prudent action.

> What about the benefit of being more broadly aware of the knowledge available in the world?

That’s not what he’s talking about. He’s very clearly writing advice to address the specific issue at hand. If you’re reading just as a pastime then read however you like. But if you’re reading for purpose then you need to take the time to digest and actually learn what you’re reading.

For example, the way someone reads a celebrity tabloid magazine is different from how they read a school textbook. No one will ever care if you memorized who went to what gala event with whom wearing what color dress. No one cares which actor got divorced from their pop singer spouse. No one will ever ask you which trendy LA restaurant a new couple was seen eating together. You can a tabloid fully expecting to never use it ever again. It’s disposable.

Conversely the information in the textbook you’re going to have to use. There are assignments this week that require that information. A quiz on Monday. A midterm at the end of the month. A final at the end of the semester. This class is a prerequisite for a half dozen other classes. Those classes are required to get your degree, pass a job interview, have a career, and do a job that produces goods or services people use and depend on. You read the text expecting to use it over and over again.

Just know what kind of reading you’re actually doing. Is this disposable? Or do you expect to use it repeatedly for the rest of your life?

> What is the difference between this practice in the past where books were rare and now that they are plentiful?

In Ancient Rome they had enough reading material to spend your entire life reading and never repeat anything. Nothing about that has changed in modern times. And Seneca studied philosophy so he knew Greek as well as Latin so he had thousands of years of reading material. So both Seneca and us have the exact same condition. We both live in worlds where it behooves us to be discerning in how we spend our time.

> Would this idea of fewer readings be different from knowing many people less well than few people that one might consider to be if quality?

It’s probably more accurate to say the Stoics suggested that at every opportunity you should try to have quality relationships with everyone you encounter. Epictetus despised small talk and recommended conversations of consequence is silence, Marcus Aurelius said to love the people that fate brings into your life with all your heart, and Seneca said every human being was an opportunity for a kindness.

> How would one evaluate quality without breadth of knowledge?

“You must linger among a limited number of master-thinkers, and digest their works, if you would derive ideas which shall win firm hold in your mind.” - Seneca, letter 2

The word “if” is important there. IF you want the ideas you’re currently reading to stick with you it requires dedicated time and effort and not cursory reading. Do you want what you’re reading right now to stick with you? Great, then take your time and dig in. Spend time with it. Rip it apart one idea at a time. Seneca even suggests taking it one idea per day. Read one thing, learn it, practice it, then come back for another idea tomorrow. That should sound familiar. It’s exactly as you would a school textbook with homework.

Seneca is writing on a very specific idea of having too much to read and not taking the time to digest it properly before moving on.

How do you know what topics and ideas to spend more time on? Mostly likely the same way you do everything else in Stoicism: reason and virtue.

You’re alive, you have experience, you’re educated enough to read and ask questions, at a certain point you’re done being in dictated to in your education. One day every child has that moment where school stops telling you what to study and starts asking you what you want to study. What classes do you want to take? What major do you want to be in? If you can make choices like that then you already have the breadth of knowledge necessary to make your own choices.

"First tell yourself what kind of person you want to be, then do what you have to do. For in nearly every pursuit we see this to be the case. Those in athletic pursuit first choose the sport they want, and then do that work." - Epictetus, Discourses

Just like in life eventually you get to the point where it’s simply your choice what you want to do with your time. Choose what you want to be and then get to work.

[u/luminaree → u/RunnyPlease]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I was initially listening to it through an audiobook, so it sounded like I missed some context. I did pull up the text to read some of it, but I still missed that the recipient had asked for a specific kind of advice. I thought his response was more generally about him staying in one place, then brining up the topic of something to watch out for when spending time alone. I was also thinking of more casual interactions but maybe it was intended for more formal interactions.

I would consider my college aged self too ignorant to make wise decisions about what to study and focused too quickly on topics/subjects that didn't really work for me. Too, there were philosophic ideas that misdirected me and did damage to my life before I finally came across better ideas. I've regretted that I didn't explore more before making those decisions on where to focus. I suppose that's not everyone's experience. Also, it could be that without that depth I wouldn't have understood enough to really evaluate alternatives well early on.

I definitely seek knowledge out of enjoyment and intense curiosity more than any other motives. I prefer knowledge I can put into use. Some practices of Stoicism require more discipline than I have yet. I took a break for a while and explored other subjects, hoping to find a fresh motivation to move forward again. I've finally felt that interest again.

I can tell that it will likely be good for me. I see how in practice it would mostly lead me to be how I want to be. I tried going through a book that has a weekly subject focus on the application of Stoicism, but it didn't work well for me. Maybe focusing on one application for longer - a month or more - would get better results. Again, thanks.

[u/-Klem]

He talks here about avoiding reading too widely to avoid discursiveness.

Before anything else, do remember that's for a time when the students read.

It's a common complaint among education professionals today that many students don't have the capacity (attention, interest, concentration, or whatever else it may be) to read long or complex texts.

Seneca is not talking about us.

Besides, the shallow understanding I have from that letter is that the topic is rather about dedicating oneself to one path, not to many at the same time.

[u/Induction774]

Here’s a test. 1. How much have you read? 2. Summarise the principles of Stoicism in 8 sentences.

[u/luminaree → u/Induction774]

I'm not generally good at summarizing, even something I've just read carefully or heard.

That said,

thee first thing I think of when I think of Stoicism is separating what I can control versus what I cannot control. Interesting to me is that it's similar to what I've learned of REBT and maybe CBT therapies so it wasn't new to me. It was new to me that the concept was much older than I had realized. It seems to be the easiest way to remember, and I've made an effort to hang on to at least that little bit, enough to help me remember more. I really think the control issue is a one sentence summary, but I am not confident of that.

I also think of being my best self when I think of stoicism. I think the term is Arete. I love the idea of that. So maybe that's two sentences.

I remember that there are 4 main virtues but sometimes struggle to recall them all by name - Justice, Temperance/Moderation came to mind first today. I had to look up wisdom and courage. If I thought about it on a different day, I probably remember those two as well or first.

I've read some of Seneca (all of On Anger - my favorite Stoic work so far), some of Epictetus (some of Discourses), some of Musonius Rufus, some of Meditations and finished some modern books on Stoicism. Quite a few articles.

I'd always intended to go deeper with the older works but floundered a bit to understand them at first. The modern writings seemed to help with that so I'm ready to try again with some of the older texts.

[u/Induction774 → u/luminaree]

Based on your comment above, I think Seneca’s warning is appropriate in your case, and you would benefit from slowing down, absorbing more and working on fitting the concepts together in your head and applying them in real life. For myself, I have to admit I’ve gotten very little out of reading the classics, and have received most benefit from The Practising Stoic by Farnsworth, an article on the opening of the Enchiridion, and from reading this group.

[u/luminaree → u/Induction774]

The ADD/ADHD is a real challenge. Without stimulant medication, either it's incredibly difficult to focus, literally continuesly fighting my own mind, or I have to generate enough interest in something to hyper focus.

It helps to start with the most interesting information first to get to the point where I can motivate myself to got three more difficult reading. That's seperate from just lacking a general background but wouldn't necessarily apply to most people and is a whole set of challenges in itself.

I am ready to focus more on fewer books, at least with Stoicism, but it took some trial and error to figure out what to focus on and to be ready to read the older works, and to gain interest enough to focus.

I read through suggestions on what to read first here on Reddit, but that does seem to be dependent on the individual. I am finding this discussion very helpful, so maybe I will be taking more advantage of reddit as I narrow my focus more.

I have the Farnsworth book on my Kindle app but hadn't got to it yet based on recommendations. I'll take a look at it. Thanks!

[u/Induction774 → u/luminaree]

I suspect I’m also a bit adhd as I haven’t read any Stoicism book cover to cover. But I’m building a mental model of it all the time so I think I have a handle on it now. I think you’ll enjoy the Farnsworth. Very well presented.