Correspondence Theory

 

Correspondence Theory

Someone cuts you off in traffic. Instantly: "That asshole almost killed me!"

The Stoics observed something strange: impressions don't arrive as neutral information. They arrive as claims about reality. "I was almost killed" isn't describing your feelings. It's claiming an objective fact occurred.

But did it? You're still alive. No collision happened. The impression made a correspondence claim - "I match what occurred" - but it doesn't match. The claim is false.

The Stoic insight: Every impression claims to be true. Your job isn't to believe it or suppress it. Your job is to test it. Does this match reality?

This is why Epictetus said: "It's not things that disturb us, but our judgments about things." Not psychology. Ontology. The impression IS a judgment, and judgments can be false.

---

Libertarian Freedom

Your boss sends a snippy email. Your blood pressure spikes. Your fingers move toward the keyboard to fire back.

Stop. Right there.

The Stoics claimed something radical: in that gap between impression and response, you have genuine freedom. Not "freedom from consequences" but freedom from determination. The email doesn't force your response. Your anger doesn't force your response. The past doesn't force your response.

Three seconds of ontological openness. Multiple futures are actually possible. You could respond professionally. You could wait. You could delete and rewrite.

This isn't a technique. This is what the Stoics said freedom IS - the moment when your choice introduces something new into the world rather than being produced by what came before.

Marcus Aurelius: "You have power over your mind - not outside events." This is why. The assent is yours.

---

Moral Realism

Your friend cancels plans last minute. The impression: "I've been disrespected. This is wrong."

The Stoics made a sharp distinction: Is this actually evil, or just inconvenient?

They weren't being callous. They were being precise. Evil isn't "what bothers me" or "what violates social norms." Evil is vice - cruelty, cowardice, injustice IN THE SOUL.

Your friend's cancellation? External event. Maybe they're flaky. Maybe emergency. But no moral evil occurred TO you. You can't be morally harmed by externals.

Only your own vicious response could harm you morally. If you choose bitterness, resentment, or cruelty - THAT would be evil. But it would be your evil, not theirs done to you.

Epictetus: "It's not things that harm us, but our opinions about things." Because harm, in the moral sense, is only possible in the sphere of your own will.

```