The fundamental dilemma

The deepest dilemma in Epicureanism arises from the very definition of pleasure as the supreme good: how do you choose – at every moment – between multiple pleasures and pains, so as to achieve happiness (ataraxia + aponia) without causing yourself unnecessary suffering.

The fundamental dilemma: short-term pleasure vs. lasting happiness

Immediate pleasures vs. future consequences
An intense pleasure today (heavy meals, drinking, fleeting passions) can generate a chain of later pains (indigestion, hangover, addiction).
The dilemma: is it worth sacrificing peace of mind and physical well-being for a punctual satisfaction?
Choosing Desires
Epicurus classifies desires into:
Natural and necessary (simple food, shelter, friendship)
Natural but unnecessary (moderate luxuries)
Unnatural and unnecessary (fame, excess wealth)
Dilemma: where do you draw the line between reasonable effort for “useless” pleasures and the risk of losing balance?
Sacrifice for friendship vs. prudent self-isolation
Friendship is essential for Epicurean happiness, but it involves vulnerability (pain of loss, conflict of interest).
Dilemma: when is it wise to involve your resources (time, emotions, money) in the community and when to keep your distance to protect your own ataraxia?
Why is it so profound?

Because there is no mathematical recipe: decisions are always contextual, personal and influenced by concrete circumstances.
Even the virtue of prudence – the faculty that selects the right pleasures and pains – must be applied without falling into decisional paralysis: too much analysis can prevent you from enjoying life.
“Of all pleasures, the greatest are those that bring no pain.”
— Epicurus, Capital Maxims
Every moment we are questioned:

“Can I obtain this pleasure without disturbing my peace?”

“Is it worth the effort to remove a small pain if it puts me in an endless race of remedies and worries?”
How does this dilemma help us in practice?

Self-knowledge – identifying your own threshold of discomfort and essential needs.
Constant reflection – reviewing the choices you have made, giving up desires that have proven unsustainable.
Cultivating prudence – do not repress every pleasure, but do not obsessively chase it either.
In essence
The Epicurean dilemma is a subtle dance between two extremes:

Excess pleasure which – paradoxically – generates pain.

The fear of suffering which – in turn – enslaves life.

The solution is not a fixed algorithm, but the art of balance through prudence and friendship, so that pleasure remains “gentle” and pain – bearable and curable.

Epicurean prolepsis vs. Stoic prolepsis
1.1. Origin
Epicurus: generic images ("tree", "man") are formed by repeated sensations.
Stoics: prolepsis is a cognitively marked impression, ready to receive the assent of reason.
1.2. Function
Epicurus: serves to classify and evaluate pleasures and pains.
Stoics: provides a starting point for deciding whether an impression is kataleptic, i.e. infallible.
1.3. Trust
Epicurus: prolepsis can be corrected on the basis of new experience.
Stoics: a kataleptic prolepsis cannot be false, being accompanied by an internal "sign" of veracity.
Katalepsis: the Stoic standard of truth
2.1. Definition
Katalepsis (κατάληψις) = impression so clear and coercive that it admits of no false equivalent.
2.2. The criterion of non-contradiction
A cataleptic impression cannot generate internal contradictions; reason recognizes it as coming from the real object.
2.3. The role of logos
The rational mind validates cataleptic impressions, ensuring coherence between sensation and judgment.
The encounter with the Meno problem
3.1. The Platonic dilemma
How do you look for something you don't know and how do you know what to look for?
3.2. Stoic response
Paradigmatic prolepsis (universal notions) are "primary imprints" of reason, not innate transcendent ideas.
3.3. Epicurean contrast
Epicurus rejects any innate idea; concepts are formed gradually, through the repetition of sensory experiences.
Implications and criticisms
4.1. Skeptical criticism
Carneades and Sextus Empiricus attacked the dogma of infallible impressions (the illusion of the tower in the desert).
4.2. Stoic response
The adhesive katalepsis also includes the consciousness of clarity: an internal feeling that accompanies truthful impressions.
4.3. Modern resonances
Prefigurations of the contemporary debate on "justified true belief" and the illusions of perception.
Comparative conclusions
5.1. Epicurus
Modest epistemology: senses + adjustable prolepsis + non-contradiction.
5.2. Stoics
Aspire to an infallible criterion (katalepsis), grounded in a native rationalism.
5.3. Both schools
Rejected the transcendent world of the Platonic Forms, basing knowledge on experience and "incarnate" reason.

Epicurus' death reflects the "verticality" with which he lived his teachings:

1. Illness and suffering
According to Hermarch, his successor, Epicurus died in 270 BC, at the age of 72, following a blockage of the urinary tract (bladder stones) combined with severe dysentery. 2. Attitude in the face of death
Despite the terrible pain, he remained cheerful, continuing to teach and remind his disciples of the truths of his philosophy until the last moment. 3. The Letter to Idomeneus
One of the fragments included by Diogenes Laertius (sometimes marked by questionable authenticity) depicts Epicurus breathing easily on his very last day, content with the philosophical contemplation that sustained him in suffering. Thus, the way he faced his illness — without fear of death, with the serenity he preached — confirms the coherence between the Epicurean theory of ataraxia (peace of mind) and the practice of life.