Before You Reply: Epictetus on Facts and Judgement

A terse workplace message can feel accusatory before its meaning is clear. Epictetus offers a practical interruption: separate the words you actually received from the judgement that arose around them, then ask what would clarify the situation. That pause can improve a reply, but it must never be used to minimise abuse, injustice, grief or physical pain.

By the AtheneNet Editorial Desk | Published 31 August 2026

Epictetus distinguished events from our judgements about them

In chapter 5 of the Enchiridion, Epictetus is translated as saying: “Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things.”

The line is often shortened into a reassuring claim that perspective determines experience. Its more useful meaning is narrower: an event and our interpretation of that event are related, but they are not identical.

A delayed reply is an event. “They are deliberately ignoring me” is an interpretation. A colleague saying “Redo this” is observable language. “My work is worthless and I am about to be dismissed” is a conclusion that may arrive immediately, before more information is available.

This distinction does not prove that the interpretation is wrong. Silence can be intentional, criticism can be hostile and dismissal can be a real possibility. The Stoic exercise is to notice which part is known, which part has been inferred and what evidence could distinguish between competing explanations.

Modern psychology sometimes discusses a related process as cognitive appraisal: people evaluate what an event means for their safety, goals or identity. Epictetus was not writing modern clinical psychology, however, and the concepts should not be treated as interchangeable. His concern was ethical training—how to exercise judgement and choose an action when much of the world remains outside personal control.

A formerly enslaved teacher wrote for practical life

Epictetus was born around the middle of the first century CE in Hierapolis, in what is now Türkiye. He lived in Rome while enslaved and was later freed. After the emperor Domitian expelled philosophers from Rome, Epictetus established a school at Nicopolis in north-western Greece. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a scholarly account of his life, teaching and place within Stoicism.

Epictetus did not leave writings of his own. His student Arrian recorded the teachings associated with the Discourses and compiled the shorter Enchiridion, often translated as the “Handbook”. Its compact instructions were meant to be used, rehearsed and tested in ordinary decisions.

The opening chapter distinguishes between what depends on us—such as judgement, intention and chosen action—and what does not fully depend on us, including reputation, other people’s conduct and many external outcomes. This is not a promise that disciplined thinking will make events harmless. It is an invitation to locate the next decision that is genuinely ours.

That practical emphasis matters. The response pause is not passive resignation. It can lead to a question, a correction, a documented objection, a boundary or a formal complaint. What changes is the route to the action: observation first, interpretation made visible, then a deliberate response.

How to read an ambiguous Teams message before replying

Imagine a UK employee receives a Teams message from their manager at 2.17pm:

Need to discuss this. Come to my office at 3.

The employee immediately thinks: “The client complained. I have made a serious mistake. I am going to lose my job.” Their body may respond before any conscious analysis: tightened shoulders, nausea, anger or an urge to send a defensive paragraph.

The Stoic distinction can divide the moment into three parts:

• Observable words: The manager wants a discussion at 3pm and refers to “this”, without identifying the subject.
• Immediate interpretation: The meeting concerns a failure, the manager is angry and employment is at risk.
• Next clarifying question: “Of course. Could you let me know which piece of work you would like to discuss so I can bring the relevant notes?”

That question does not assume friendly intent. It asks for missing information and creates time to prepare. If no answer comes, the employee can still take the relevant project records, note the meeting time and enter the conversation without treating the worst interpretation as an established fact.

The same method also prevents forced optimism. Replacing “I am certainly being dismissed” with “Everything is definitely fine” merely substitutes one unsupported claim for another. A more accurate thought is: “I do not yet know what the meeting concerns. I can ask, prepare and decide how to respond when I have more information.”

The pause should produce a deliberate next action

A useful response pause can be brief. Before sending a message, write three lines privately:

1. What words or actions could another person independently observe?
2. What meaning did I immediately assign to them?
3. What question or action would give me better information or protect an important boundary?

Then check the tone of the proposed reply. Does it respond to what was communicated, or to an intention that has not been established? Is a clarifying question possible? Is there a deadline, safety issue or power imbalance that requires prompt escalation instead?

This method is especially valuable in email and Teams conversations because short messages strip away vocal tone, facial expression and conversational repair. The recipient may fill those gaps using previous experiences, workplace tensions or reasonable concerns about authority. Pausing does not erase that context; it stops context from becoming unquestioned certainty.

Stoic reframing must not minimise real harm

Epictetus’s formulation has a hard edge. Read carelessly, it can imply that suffering exists only because someone has judged an event badly. That implication should be rejected.

Physical pain is real. Bereavement is not a reasoning error. Discrimination, intimidation and unsafe working conditions are not cured by adopting a calmer interpretation. Abuse remains abuse regardless of how composed its target becomes.

Reframing is inappropriate when it is used to tell another person that they are overreacting, to excuse repeated misconduct or to avoid action that could prevent further harm. In a workplace, a pattern of threatening messages may need to be saved and reported through a manager, trade union representative, HR process or relevant external route. Immediate danger calls for immediate protective action, not a philosophical exercise.

The ethical boundary is simple: separate facts from interpretations to improve your agency, never to erase the facts. A pause is worthwhile when it helps you identify what happened, what remains uncertain and what response now serves clarity, dignity or safety.

Source: Editorial research