> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://wiki.stoicfellowship.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://wiki.stoicfellowship.com/wiki/exercises/choice-action-and-virtue/two-handles.md). # Two Handles Find another true and relevant perspective that allows you to carry a conflict fairly > **Practice basis:** Ancient instruction When one troubling fact becomes your whole view of a conflict, find another true and relevant perspective that helps you carry the matter fairly. ## At a Glance * **Use when:** Another person’s conduct leaves you angry, disappointed, resentful, or fixed on one grievance. * **Trains:** Fair judgment, relational perspective, role awareness, and resistance to reducing a person or relationship to one troubling act. * **Time:** One to five minutes. * **Timing:** During a pause in the conflict or during later reflection. Address an urgent problem first when necessary. ## Purpose Someone breaks an agreement, speaks sharply, or makes a shared task harder. The conduct may genuinely be wrong, but one fact can begin to govern your view of the whole person or relationship. For example, you stop seeing a colleague and see only the missed deadline, or you stop seeing a brother and see only the injustice. In *Enchiridion* 43, Epictetus asks how you should respond when your brother acts unjustly toward you. “He has acted unjustly” is true, but holding the matter only by the offense makes it difficult to carry well. Epictetus directs attention to another truth: “He is my brother; we were brought up together.” The second handle does not make the brother’s conduct just. It reminds the practitioner that another person’s failure does not decide how he will perform his own role. Justice may still require correction or a limit; the relationship helps him consider that response without allowing the injury to settle his entire judgment. The other handle must be true and relevant. It is not a pleasant story about the person’s hidden motives, and it does not make misconduct acceptable. It brings another part of the matter into view: a relationship, shared responsibility, prior history, or your own commitment to fair judgment. That fuller perspective may support reconciliation, a candid conversation, a firm boundary, or protective distance. **Core Stoic Skill:** Bringing another true and relevant feature of a conflict into view before settling your judgment of the person, relationship, or appropriate response. ## How to Practice 1. **Name what makes the matter hard to carry.** State the troubling fact in one sentence: “They missed the deadline we agreed on.” Notice whether that fact has become your whole account of the person or relationship. 2. **Find another true perspective.** Ask, “What else matters here that I can honestly recognize?” Consider a continuing relationship, shared undertaking, previous history, role, or responsibility. Do not guess at motives you cannot know. 3. **Check the fit.** Ask two questions: “Is this true?” and “Does it help me face the real problem?” Reject a handle that minimizes the conduct, excuses a pattern, or requires you to abandon an appropriate boundary. 4. **Hold both truths together.** Form a judgment that includes the injury and the relevant relationship or responsibility: “The missed deadline matters, and this is a colleague with whom I share a task.” Let that fuller judgment guide what you consider doing next. ## Example: The Missed Deadline A colleague misses a deadline you agreed on. The delay creates more work for you, and you begin to think, “They are unreliable and do not respect my time.” Begin with the settled fact: the colleague missed the deadline. Then ask what else matters. You both remain responsible for completing the project, and you have worked together successfully before. Those facts do not erase the missed commitment, but they give you a handle for approaching it fairly. Hold the truths together: “They missed an important deadline, and we share responsibility for completing this work.” That judgment may lead you to ask what happened, explain the effect of the delay, reset the plan, or establish a firmer expectation. The usable handle helps you face the problem without reducing the colleague to it. ## When the Relationship Is Not the Handle Sometimes closeness, trust, or continued contact is no longer appropriate. The usable handle may then be your responsibility to judge accurately, protect yourself or another person, seek formal help, or set a necessary boundary. For example, “This person has repeatedly violated the agreement, and I still owe them an accurate account and a fair process” can support firm action without requiring continued trust. You do not have to preserve closeness with someone in order to practice justice. ## Common Mistakes * Using the other handle to excuse misconduct or tolerate abuse, repeated harm, or violated boundaries. * Searching for a positive interpretation or inventing a charitable motive instead of finding another true and relevant perspective. * Using the exercise to avoid a candid conversation, complaint, protective action, or other response that justice permits and requires. * Choosing a true fact that does not bear on the conflict. Shared taste in music may be true but irrelevant to a broken agreement. * Assuming that the other handle must lead to reconciliation or continued closeness. * Settling on a comforting handle when the honest answer is still unclear. You may leave the question open and return when you have better evidence. ## In-the-Moment Phrases * “Which handle am I using?” * “What else matters here that is true?” * “Is it true? Does it fit?” * “This happened, and this also matters.” * “Find the handle. Check the fit.” ## Optional Reflection Use these questions for journaling or quiet contemplation. Writing is optional; the questions support the exercise but do not replace its practice. * Which grievance most easily becomes my whole view of another person? * What relevant truth did I overlook because I was focused on the injury? * Did the other handle help me face the problem, or did it help me avoid it? * What response became possible when I held both truths together? * If closeness or trust has changed, what truthful handle still supports fair judgment and appropriate protection? ## Source Anchors * Epictetus, *Enchiridion* 43 * Marcus Aurelius, *Meditations* 6.39 and 11.18 ## Related Exercises * [Bracketing](/wiki/exercises/attention-impressions-and-assent/bracketing.md) * [Examine Your Impressions](/wiki/exercises/attention-impressions-and-assent/examine-your-impressions.md) * [Role Review](/wiki/exercises/roles-relationships-and-speech/role-review.md) * [Prepare for Difficult Conversations](/wiki/exercises/roles-relationships-and-speech/prepare-for-difficult-conversations.md) ## Modern Parallels Cognitive reappraisal, perspective-taking, and reframing resemble parts of this practice. Two Handles is more disciplined than searching for a helpful thought. The alternative perspective must be true, relevant to the conflict, and compatible with justice and appropriate protection. --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://wiki.stoicfellowship.com/wiki/exercises/choice-action-and-virtue/two-handles.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.