lot of the previous posts regarding Seymour's stats is a bit over focus on the idea of intelligence. Arguing the flawed view of philosophy and etc. Over looking the basic facts and traits of the character. That is he is politically connected and economically successful; dont get that way without some kind of smarts.
More importantly; the man is a manipulator. Now maybe Eva didnt do it quiet that well, the reception is debatable and subjective, but that is the point of the interactions with him thus far is suppose to convey.
The man is of means and able to use it and can do so directly and indirectly and should not be taken lightly. Least thats my take on the character thus far in the story.
Also, the dialogue over the philiosphy (forgot who exactly) is mainly to convey how that character views things. Right or wrong.
I don't think anyone was overlooking the "basic facts and traits of the character"; none of these things are exactly hidden or hard to decipher (and we've discussed them in the past anyway) - but execution matters
a lot.
As a writer, it's incredibly important to get the execution right when showcasing how a character views and deals with their world. If it's not done right, it's simply not believable, and the character comes across as a phony. If that hadn't been the case, you wouldn't have gotten so many people thinking Seymour was 'fake smart' and being surprised when he was actually meant to be smart; we might tell ourselves that a character is meant to be a certain way because it's what the author was going for, but we can't fool our subconscious that picks up on the obvious flaws that go against the image. That little demonstration of philosophy would cut it for a 20-something year old that had just ventured in to philosophy, but no so much the 50-something world-wise, master manipulator and business tycoon who had probably studied philosophy for years and shaped himself and his world around his findings.
A guy like Seymour who has probably been testing and manipulating people in just such a way for years would be far more subtle and refined in his approach, and he'd be an incredibly keen observer (and very skilled with reading body language). If he believes that Lena might be useful to his plans, he almost certainly wouldn't just come out and ask her some big philosophical question - certainly not over dinner at the stage when he's still trying to hook her.
He'd be far more likely to test her and feel her out through what she chooses to talk about (keep her comfortable and more likely to reveal things with subtle prodding), using his charm to distract from things getting too serious, intrigue her with a show of subtle (fake) vulnerability to appear more human and relatable (closer to her level - someone she could form an agreeable relationship with), and give her only enough information about himself that he remains this mystery she'll want to solve (keep her coming back for more). After all, he's not doing this for her benefit, and it's not for us as the reader - if she's someone he determines is useful to his plans, he wants to know exactly who he's dealing with so he can manipulate her at every step and never allow her the opportunity to undermine him as he uses her. He didn't get to where he was employing all the psychological subtlety of a bull in a china shop.
If the readers don't sense anything from that then it's good, if they sense something feels a little suspicious but they can't pinpoint it, even better. If they figure him out, that's fine too, as long as it still feels authentic. Of course, readers have a context that Lena doesn't, so it makes sense that we'll always be a little suspicious of a character's motives when they seem a little too perfect.
Anyway, embodying someone who is so different to you as the writer (as I'm guessing Eva is to Seymour) is
not an easy thing. There is a reason why good and/or highly acclaimed writers often put crazy amounts of time into researching their book, or go and live in the country were they've set the book while they're writing it - they want the authenticity to seep in every part of their work. If you're writing of a foreign place or a character very unlike yourself (in personality and/or experiences), and you're not going to put the effort into researching to make it feel authentic, you're compromising your work. Some writers might not have a problem with that (although most writers do - it will sit in your mind and not let you sleep from the knowledge that you're letting yourself down, and
you will always know), but their reader's will.
Of course, nobody is expecting Eva to read and ruminate over a ton of books on philosophy or what have you, but that's why less detail and writing cleverly is so important. Give Seymour the illusion of intelligence by alluding to it indirectly. He doesn't need to talk like a big brain, and he's probably unlikely to get that technical in the presence of people 'beneath him' (or outside of his ruthless world) anyway, considering his desire to appeal to them on their level and so manipulate them effectively.
