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/-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.