u/luminaree

I'm curious to understand whether people-pleasing corresponds with a concept in stoicism. I think of Stoicism as being open to being wrong. This happens to overlap with some beliefs I had before starting to study Stoicism. If I understand it right, the idea is that I could be wrong about anything and therefore should keep an open mind to people even if I think they may be terribly wrong.

I have had a tendency in the past to be reluctant to bring up differences in opinion. I'm not perfect about this and can even be quite vocal about disagreeing with someone or even say I think they're doing something terribly wrong, usually only in the case that I know them very well.

I'm guessing that the idea that Stoicism means something like being passive may be part of the problem here. When you disagree with someone and you think it is say not preferred and you think that someone is acting unjustly towards you or others, is it best to keep that to yourself and ponder it for a while or indefinitely? Or is it better to bring it up and discuss it? I'm thinking that the latter may actually be better though I have tended to mostly keep these things to myself because I prefer to think about them on my own. I think I prefer to avoid conflict mostly, but occasionally get into it and even enjoy it.

Is there anything wrong with enjoying an argument sometimes? At least if it's mutually enjoyable and you both are learning from it?

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?