Can you summarize his view of the difference?
To add to what Pacatus just said....
The book is part of a reworking of a dissertation that Guyau wrote, which was a critique of utilitarianism. He considered Epicurus to be the first utilitarian philosopher. In Book 4 of this book he looks at 17th and 18th century utilitarian/Epicurean thinkers. Since I'm not well versed in utilitarianism, or in the other philosophers he discusses, I can't comment very intelligently (assuming that I ever comment intelligently 
) on those subjects.
I agree that we can critically personalize our approach in the context that Pacatus describes, subject to continual verification. We on this forum don't always agree on everything and we rarely agree with the academics: this necessitates that we form our own opinions. And of course philosophizing is thinking, not copying. This book is a useful vehicle for stimulating thinking and for examining Epicurus in a historical context which begins with Epicurus and ends with Guyau.
So, to answer your question Cassius , I was referring specifically to the subject of pleasure. The way that I read Guyau, he thinks that Epicurus tends toward tranquilism. But he thinks that tranquilism is incomplete and he embraces an inclusive view of pleasure, much as we do. So we can disagree with his interpretation of this, while at the same time agreeing with his conclusion.
