If you’ve read or listened to much Stoic 
literature, you’ll have heard of Epicurus   and Epicureanism, usually in a negative 
light. In this video, I want to explain   as clearly as possible what Epicureanism is, 
consider whether it’s at odds with Stoicism,   and give some suggestions on how to 
productively view it from a Stoic perspective. Epicureanism is technically a hedonistic 
philosophy. It teaches that the highest   good is pleasure, but pleasure achieved through 
freedom from pain* and tranquillity of mind**,   rather than through the types of sensual desires 
that we commonly associate with Hedonism***. “When, therefore, we maintain 
that pleasure is the end,   we do not mean the pleasures of profligates 
and those that consist in sensuality,   as is supposed by some who are 
either ignorant or disagree with us,   or do not understand, but freedom from pain in 
the body and from trouble in the mind.” Epicurus

In practice, therefore, a true Epicurean life usually entails self-discipline, simple living, and the maintenance of strong friendships. Look up the word Epicurean in the dictionary, however, and you’ll see its modern usage is almost the exact opposite. Just like Stoicism, its colloquial meaning has drifted over the millennia, however, unlike Stoicism, this drift is largely the result of a deliberate mischaracterization by early scholars. Before diving into the weeds, let’s do a high-level comparison of both Stoicism and Epicureanism. For those of you with short attention spans, this is the TLDR version. The Virtues, in the eyes of Epicureanism, the virtues are only good insofar as they help you attain pleasure and happiness, but they are not good in and of themselves. To the Stoics, the virtues are the sole goods, specifically, Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. They are their own rewards.

and the fact that they tend to lead to 
a happy life is an incidental benefit.  Pleasure: Meaning comfort, wealth, 
and lack of pain. In the eyes of   Epicureanism pleasure is the highest good, 
it is what we should seek for a happy life.   True pleasure is achieved through the elimination 
of pain and fear. To that end, it is characterized   by: sufficient food, a comfortable dwelling, 
peaceful relationships, and temperance.  To the Stoics, pleasure, wealth, and lack of pains 
are ‘preferred indifferents’, it’s better to have   them than to not, but a good life can be led 
without them. They sometimes also argue we need to   encounter hardships in life to test and strengthen 
ourselves, as well as to practice our virtues.  The Gods: To Epicureans maybe they exist, but 
they are indifferent to us. Do not fear them,   as fear disrupts tranquillity. To the 
Stoics, they exist and impact our lives,

nature is designed by Zeus, therefore, some degree of divine providence exists. We are like a little appendage of Zeus, and who is an appendage to question the plans of the whole body? (Epictetus). Superstition, magic, and divination. To the Epicureans, these are false. They are also sources of fear, and since fear disrupts our happiness, they should be actively avoided. The Stoics agreed that these were false. On a cursory glance then Epicureanism places pleasure above virtue and Stoicism does the opposite, and Epicureanism ignores God and religion, whilst Stoicism teaches that a divine creator continues to impact the world and should be revered. Given these pretty fundamental differences, it's easy to see where the animosity comes from. Now if all you want is to understand the difference then you can stop right here. But if you wish to understand why Epicureanism has been so maligned and what it can still teach us,

then listen on as we take a deeper 
look at its history and teachings.  “Stranger, you would do good to stay a while, 
for here the highest good is pleasure...”  First to the history.
Epicurus was born in 341 BC,   grew up on the Greek island of Samos and 
studied under a follower of Democritus*.   He did his military service at 18, 
spent a number of years traveling,   and then began teaching philosophy 
in Mytilene at about the age of 30.  In 306 BC, he returned to Athens and founded 
what came to be known as his “Garden”, a   place of recluse where he taught and lived out his 
philosophy with close friends and students. It is   above the entrance to this Garden that the famous 
quote referenced by Seneca, is said to have hung.  During Epicurus’ life, Epicureanism and Stoicism 
both grew in popularity and became dominant.

philosophies of the age. Epicureanism reached 
its height around 70 BC, and while popular in Rome, it did draw more criticism than Stoicism 
due to its teachings being seen to run counter to the Roman ideal of the manly virtues.
Later, it came under sustained attack from Christian scholars due to its heretical views 
on God and the soul, which could not be reconciled with Christianity. Epikoros is even 
the Jewish term for heretic used in the Mishnah (part of the Oral Torah composed between 200 and 
220 AD), and “Epicurus [and] all his followers” make an appearance in Dante’s Inferno in the sixth 
level of hell, the one reserved for heretics. “Their cemetery have upon this side
⁠With Epicurus all his followers, ⁠Who with the body, mortal make the soul.”
- Dante’s Inferno, Canto 10 (1200 AD)

By the early middle-ages, Epicureanism had faded completely, with Epicurus being considered a patron of drunkards, whoremongers, and gluttons. It wasn’t until the 15th century that some of his texts resurfaced, and not until the 17th century that Enlightenment thinkers began to take an active interest in reviving his ideas. Here’s Thomas Jefferson writing to William Short in 1819: “As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed*) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Short, 1819* In contrast, Stoicism was broadly embraced by Christianity and remained in Europe to some degree until its modern-day revival.

What about Epicurus’ Other Works? It bares mentioning that philosophy aside, Epicurus also took a wide interest in the

study of science and nature in general. Whilst 
living in his Garden, he is said (by Diogenes) to have written some 300 treatises on topics 
ranging from the theory of knowledge to physics, astronomy, and language. As an example, 
a few of the things he wrote about were: The atom.
That the Universe is infinite. That the Universe is not completely 
deterministic at the atomic scale, but contains elements of uncertainty and 
probability (referred to as “swerve” by Epicurus). That Platonic forms were nonsense, and 
that properties like sweetness or colour were not present in individual atoms but were 
emergent properties as atoms came together. How the mind is a physical organ and 
that our spirit is destroyed at death. The idea of a Social Contract 
as a basis of justice. The formulation of ‘The Problem 
of Evil’ argument, that is: Evil exists because God either is unwilling to 
stop it, is unable to stop it, or doesn’t exist.

References to the idea of ‘God of the Gaps’ arguments; that things like lightning and earthquakes were not signs of the gods, but rather naturally occurring events, explainable if we simply study the natural world enough. And that we could, through the study of science, emancipate ourselves from irrational fears and even develop a science of happiness. In a sense, Epicurus was akin to an early Humanist or even New Atheist in his outlook, and Epicureanism as a philosophy finds most followers among such circles today. But now let’s take a deeper look at Epicurean Philosophy. Epicureanism holds pleasure as its highest good, and Epicurus separated pleasures into two sorts: those that were active and those that were static. An active or Kinetic pleasure is felt when one is in the process of performing an action, such as satisfying a desire or removing a pain, for example, eating.

But after you finish eating, you will be in a state of contentment. You will feel satiated and satisfied. This static state Epicurus referred to as a Katastematic pleasure. Epicurus appreciated the kinetic pleasures but is said to have valued the Katastematic sort more. To him, achieving an absence of pain and a lack of disturbance of mind was what led to true happiness. “The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain.” Among pleasure and pain, Epicurus also differentiated between the physical and the mental. Physical pleasures and pains concern only the present, whereas mental pleasures and pains also encompass the past (think fond memories or regret over past mistakes) and the future (that is to say confidence or fear about what will occur). Now, Katastematic pleasures come in both physical and mental forms. Physically, when free from physical disturbances, such as hunger, thirst, or ill health.

And mentally when free from negative 
thoughts, such as fear and worry. Achieving freedom from physical 
disturbance was referred to as aponia, and achieving freedom from mental 
disturbance was referred to as ataraxia. Since Katastematic pleasures require the 
satisfying of desires and alleviating of fears, Epicurus set about defining and categorizing 
the types of desire we experience. He divided them into three groups:
1. Natural and Necessary
2. Natural and Unnecessary
3. Unnatural and Unnecessary (the vain desires). He said we should pursue the first, 
be open to but cautious of the second, and avoid completely the third. Natural and Necessary desires are things such 
as food, water, and human company. These are 
difficult to eliminate but easily satisfied 
and bring great pleasure when they are. What’s more, they are usually necessary for life 
or at least for a happy life. For this reason,

we should always try to fulfil these desires as it 
is only in satisfying them that we reach Aponia. Natural and Unnecessary desires are things like 
luxurious food, fine clothes or sex. These are not necessary for life, and also not always easy 
to satisfy. They are kinetically pleasurable, however they present a katastematic risk in that 
the more we indulge in them, the more of a habit we build around consuming them. Then should they ever 
become unavailable, we risk losing our tranquillity due to an unfulfilled unnecessary desire.
Ultimately, Epicurus’ advice is to be open to them but to definitely avoid 
becoming accustomed to them. (Incidentally, this is similar to the Stoic 
position which generally emphasizes simple living, but also says not to be afraid of using 
luxuries when they happen to be available.) Finally, the Unnatural and Unnecessary 
desires are things like power.

wealth and fame - These are the vain desires, not 
natural to human beings but conditioned into us by society. They are unnecessary and difficult 
to satisfy because they have no natural limit; for example, if one chases after power, no 
amount of power will ever be enough as it’s always possible to get more. Further, even as we 
achieve them, we gain with them not only the fear of losing what we have gained, which manifests as 
a mental pain, but also the anger and animosity of those around us who now envy our position.
As such they are unnecessary, insatiable and lead to pain and fear if achieved, 
consequently they are to be utterly avoided. If you live according to nature, you will 
never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich.
Or, in the words of Seneca: “Nature's wants are slight; the 
demands of opinion are boundless.”

Following these definitions, it can be tempting to think of Epicurus as an Ascetic, someone who believes in the denouncement of all worldly possessions in favour of spiritual goals, but he was not quite that extreme. There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance. – Epicurus. Epicurus’ position revolved around minimizing sources of pain not in eliminating all sources of pleasure or all physical possessions. If eliminating something caused more pain than it alleviated, what was the point? Further, he held that the majority of all kinetic pleasure was achieved in the process of satisfying our most basic needs, and luxuries while pleasant, brought minimal added value. To understand this, imagine quenching your thirst with water on a hot day, and then imagine quenching it with any other drink of your choice. It is the quenching that

brings the lion’s share of the pleasure, and the 
flavour of the liquid really just adds variety, moving the pleasure sideways so to 
speak, rather than greatly increasing it. I quoted earlier this famous phrase that 
hung above the entrance to Epicurus’ Garden. Consider now Seneca’s commentary on that garden. “The caretaker of that abode, a 
friendly host, will be ready for you; he will welcome you with barley-meal, and serve 
you water also in abundance, with these words: ‘Have you not been well entertained?’ 
This garden does not whet your appetite; but quenches it. Nor does it make you more thirsty 
with every drink; it slakes the thirst with a natural cure – a cure that requires no fee. It is 
with this type of pleasure that I have grown old.” The true meaning then is that the 
aim of the Garden was to quench your appetite with simple fare, and 
put a stop to your unnecessary desires.

It is this that brings about Epicurus’ 
highest good of lasting pleasure. Consider for a moment that there are people who 
pride themselves on their refinement of taste, and say things like “I only accept the best 
in life” – to Epicurus this was backwards; you experience pain when you 
can't satisfy what you want, so to deliberately train yourself to want refined 
things is simply setting yourself up for pain. Teach yourself instead to take pleasure and joy 
in simple things, and you will always be happy. This thought is echoed in 
Stoicism, with Epictetus’ words: I do not need [luxuries]; but you, 
even if you acquire many possessions, need still others, and whether you will or 
not, are more poverty-stricken than I am. Religion & Death
Satisfying our natural desires alone is not enough to achieve Ataraxia 
and a tranquil mind. For this, we must remove

all mental anguish and worry. To this end, Epicurus taught that we must not fear death or the gods. Death because we would not be conscious of it when it happened, and the gods because it was unlikely that they paid any attention to us. “Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death, and therefore in death, there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the belief that in death, there is awareness.” - Epicurus His argument around death is essentially identical to that of the Stoics, and indeed many other philosophies. His argument when it came to the gods, however, was quite different. He held that either they lived in utter blessedness, completely free from care, or that they cared greatly about human affairs and so fretted over our actions; in such a case, they were effectively in a state of fear.

He couldn’t believe they existed in a state of 
fear, so chose to believe they instead ignored us. As such, he said we need not concern ourselves 
with them and therefore not fear them either. (The Roman poet Lucretius proudly referred 
to Epicurus as the Destroyer of religion. To me, this has some eery foreshadowing 
of Nietzsche’s lament that “God is dead”, which he made some 2,000 years later, funnily 
enough as Epicureanism was making a revival.) I want also to briefly touch on the 
Epicurean approach to society because there is a glaring difference with Stoicism. 
Epicurus practiced a principle of “lathe biosas”, which meant to “live in obscurity” 
or to not draw attention to oneself. Meaning one should in general withdraw 
from taking an active role in society and certainly not engage in politics, as 
such things are likely only to perturb us.

Done on an individual level, this is sustainable. One can live a productive and happy life surrounded by friends and family, and away from society at large. However, at a societal level, the more people that practice this, the fewer people there are to take charge of the running of the state, resist barbarian invasions, and generally act for the public good. I guess you could say it relies on the world not coming to you. It’s true that Stoics like Seneca talk frequently about “retiring” from public life and solely pursuing philosophy. However, the Stoics in general had a very strong notion of civic responsibility, duty, and even speaking truth to power, as they were driven not by outcomes but by virtuous behavior itself. To them, tranquility of mind came second. What’s more, many Epicureans, including Epicurus himself, were also celibate since they considered

the complications and pains that came with romantic relationships to outweigh the benefits. Taken together, these two issues lead to an interesting question as to whether Epicureanism is a sustainable philosophy for a society to practice at large, as it would likely lead to a decrease in birth rate and, in antiquity at least, would leave a society more vulnerable to aggressive neighbours or the more proselytizing sorts of philosophies and religions. Given that western society today, at least the non-religious parts, probably leans toward an amalgamation of hedonism and Epicureanism, it might be worth considering. So, what does an Epicurean life look like, and is it opposed to Stoicism? Having looked at the principles, we can say that Epicureanism is technically hedonistic; however, it is probably more useful to think of it as ‘Tranquillistic’. Its principal goal is the elimination of pain.

both physical and mental, and any other active 
form of pleasure seeking comes second to that. A short summary of how to practice 
Epicureanism then would be: Focus on absolutely satisfying your natural 
needs: food, shelter, and friendship. Withdraw yourself from sources of pain and 
disquietude, such as fame, responsibility, and public office, and don’t pursue wealth beyond 
what is required to fulfill your basic needs. Focus on bringing your friends into your life more. Work can be rewarding, provided 
you’re not doing it for the money, but in order to work cooperatively with friends 
or do something you feel is innately valuable. Practice self-discipline: pain and 
sacrifice should be chosen if they will yield greater tranquillity later.
And oftentimes we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains 
for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure 
because it is naturally akin to us is good,

not all pleasure is choiceworthy, just as all pain 
is an evil. And yet not all pain is to be shunned.  On a theoretical level, Epicureanism directly 
contradicts Stoicism in its belief that a divine creator does not impact the world, in 
its suggestion to withdraw from civic duty, and in its elevating of pleasure over virtue. 
In this respect, they are clearly opposed. But on a practical level, both Epicureans 
and Stoics can lead similar lives. In order to live a true Epicurean life, one 
must actively practice Temperance, Courage, and Fortitude in order to limit oneself to natural 
and necessary desires, fashion a life around that at the expense of all else, and maintain 
the self-discipline necessary to endure pain now for greater tranquillity later. While virtue 
practiced under the motivation of reward might not sit well with Stoics, on a purely practical 
level, the effect is the same: virtuous action.

In Seneca’s words, Epicurus was a brave man who practiced an ‘effeminate’ philosophy. “In my own opinion, however, Epicurus is really a brave man, even though he did wear long sleeves.” Fortitude, energy, and readiness for battle are to be found among the Persians, just as much as among men who have girded themselves up high. Ultimately, the degree to which they are in agreement depends on whether you are looking at theory or practice. In theory they differ a lot, in practice there is far more overlap. With this in mind, what practical takeaways can Stoics and Epicureans take from one another without sacrificing their core beliefs? “This is my own custom; from the many things which I have read, I claim some one part for myself.” A takeaway for Stoics is to genuinely assess whether your true basic needs are met: Compared

with antiquity, modern society is abundant, so for 
most people food and shelter are not a problem. However, what is far harder these days is 
community. Modern lifestyles can be severely isolating and consequently many people miss out on 
the most fundamental human need of companionship. Ask yourself if this applies to you, and if 
so, prioritise fixing it even at great material expense because holding on to money and luxuries 
won’t have nearly as much effect on your life as being in a position to frequently interact 
with your close friends. This courage to radically alter life to meet our “natural and necessary” 
desires is a large part of Epicureanism. “Of all the means to ensure happiness throughout 
the whole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.” - Epicurus
Secondly, and as an extension of that topic we can seek to remove sources of pain 
before seeking out new sources of pleasure: –

An example of this would be choosing to replace a mundane object that is disrupting your life, such as a faulty washing machine, before acquiring a new luxury object like a flagship smartphone. In nearly all situations, the pain and disturbance caused by the faulty mundane object will outweigh the hedonic pleasure from the new luxury object. So spend time appraising what things in your life are causing you pain and focus your resources on fixing them rather than seeking out new pleasures. Both of these suggestions seem obvious when stated, but really, it’s the prioritization of them over other concerns that is the true challenge. And what can Epicureans take from the Stoics without undermining their philosophy? Incorporating Stoicism as an Epicurean. First, I would suggest recognizing that however much you seek to remove pain from the world, there will always be pain, and so learning to expect and endure it can be as valuable as trying to remove it.

Second, I would suggest that if what matters is achieving a happy life, then sometimes just acting as if certain things are true can have better results than acting as if they are not. For example, many religions preach that God is always watching, and so we should always be good. An atheist or Epicurean would reject that, but a similar Stoic proposal is just to imagine from minute to minute that your hero or ideal self is watching over you, and let that affect your actions. Both of these are the same idea, but one is inherently religious, and the other is just a thought experiment. The point is that both encourage you to live up to your best self, which is surely something you should want. Even if they are not literally true, there can be value in acting as if they are, rather than rejecting them because they sound irrational. And finally, I’d recommend thinking of virtuous action as a rule of thumb for good outcomes. The world is extremely complicated.

and often we can’t rationally predict the result, 
of our actions. Defaulting to virtuous action,   even if painful in the moment, will tend 
to lead to better results for everyone.  All of these arguments are pragmatic, 
intended only as a suggestion on how   both sides can better practical results, 
without needing to change underlying beliefs. This has been a very brief examination 
of Epicureanism. I’ve done my best to   represent it concisely and accurately, and to 
compare it in practical terms with Stoicism.  Hopefully it helps in not only understanding 
Epicureanism but making better sense of Seneca and   Epictetus’ critiques of it. Personally, I found 
the process very interesting as a glimpse into   the development of Western philosophy, how the 
seeds of later philosophies like Utilitarianism,   Contractarianism, and Humanism were planted by 
Epicurus in 300 BC, but disappeared for thousands.

of years due to societal pressures, before 
finally sprouting again in the Enlightenment. It also made me consider to what degree 
our current society is inclined towards Epicureanism, and to what degree that is 
sustainable on a civilizational level. But, that is a thought for another day. I welcome 
your thoughts and opinions in the comment section. Thank you for listening.

Epicureanism Vs Stoicism | Overview and Explanation

I record audiobooks, mostly on Stoicism. All my work is my own and I maintain the copyright to it. If you wish to use any clips of them for some creative purpose just drop me a message.
You can buy my recordings on Audible: https://geni.us/VoxStoicaOnAudible
I live in London, UK

Epicureanism Vs Stoicism | Overview and Explanation

Epicureanism Vs Stoicism | Overview and Explanation

스크립트