New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
You know it would probably be an interesting topic to discuss: Which therapies for depression and similar conditions *are* most consistent with Epicurean philosophy?
Good to hear from you Eoghan!
Really the best we can do is to take prudent actions to maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain in pursuit of a pleasant life, which it seems like you're doing. So, damn the statistics! Full speed ahead!
Exactly. By finding your way to EpicureanFriends you have already shown that you are capable of finding a true "needle-in-the-haystack" in the world of philosophy. That proves already that you have the ability to beat odds that have been stacked for 2000+ years! 
For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.
For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation.As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it. He therefore thinks it better to be unfortunate in reasonable action than to prosper in unreason. For it is better in a man’s actions that what is well chosen (should fail, rather than that what is ill chosen) should be successful owing to chance.
34. The use of friends is not that they are useful, but that we can trust in their usefulness.
We really need Nate to expand his book of alternate translations to the Vatican Sayings, but there aren't that many to choose from.
Is that St Andre? In this case the term "use" strikes me as a little utilitarian, and the Bailey's "help" may ring a little more friendly:
VS34. It is not so much our friends' help that helps us, as it is the confidence of their help.
This is a draft already in process of revision but posted here for talking purposes:
For those who are interested in expanding their circle of friends who are interested in the philosophy of Epicurus, a new Zoom-based online "live" discussion group is in the process of forming, and this is your invitation to consider participating.
The group is being sponsored by several regular participants of both this Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group and the EpicureanFriends.com forum. Our goal is to provide an opportunity for those who are sincerely interested in Epicurean philosophy to extend their circle of friends in a safe and structured but hopefully creative way.
Those who are familiar with Zoom are probably aware of its "Waiting Room" feature, and what we plan to do is to open up each meeting to everyone who has asked to attend and "registered" by messaging ahead and letting us know their desired user name. We plan to make registration and attendance available beyond those who are members of Facebook and Reddit and similar platforms, so we will maintain a master list of usernames independent of Facebook or other social media platform, and we will admit participants to each meeting according to their username.
Use of video is optional, and for the safety of all users we expect that many or most will choose not to use video, and that they will remain anonymous to whatever extent they prefer.
We plan to go for an hour each evening, and we have been discussing a series of formats that we will fine-tune over time. Each week, however, will follow essentially this format:
(1) Welcome: We'll go "around the table" and let each participant identify themselves as they wish, hopefully including a reference to their background and level of interest in Epicurus.
(2) Thought For The Week: Each week we will take one of the Principal Doctrines (and when we finish those, proceed to the Vatican List of Sayings) and we will have someone read the saying followed by commentary by a couple of our regulars to set the stage for further discussion. We'll then open the floor to comments by other participants (using the "raise hand" method and/or the text chat to raise an issue). We'll continue that discussion for as long as it goes but plan to cut that off around the 40 minute mark.
(3) Special Event: At the forty-minute mark we will shift to the special event of the week, which we are currently thinking of scheduling as follows:
Week One - Questions from the Floor - Bring your questions on any topic related to Epicurus that you wish.
Week Two - Living As An Epicurean in The Modern World - We will talk about things like cooking, gardening, movies, music as these relate to creating pleasurable living.
Week Three - Epicurean Favorits Art / Music Discussion - Bring music (e.g. a YouTube link) or a poem or short writing that you think best represents some part of EP, to share with the group and discuss
Week Four - Sharing Epicurean Ideas In The Modern World - Discuss ideas for engagement with people who don't know Epicurean Philosophy but who might be open to discussing it.
(4) Closing Wrap-Up - The Program coordinators will thank those who have participated and make concluding comments about what has been discussed, and what we can expect for next week, and how people can communicate and coordinate their study of Epicurean philosophy in the meantime.
- Our objective is to provide friendly, supportive, and encouraging discussion among friends who are generally supportive of the philosophy of Epicurus. This is not a professional academic philosophy group for argument or intense debate of opposing philosophies or viewpoints. It is also not a professional clinical group aimed at the treatment of depression or any emotional disorders.
- We expect participants to conduct themselves as actual or potential friends. Participation does not express or imply that you agree with every tenet of Epicurean philosophy, but the purpose of the group is to study and discuss **Epicurean** philosophy. Please do not attempt to use the group for the promotion of viewpoints that are not consistent with Epicurean philosophy. Those who fail to follow this rule will be politely reminded of it for a time, but repeat offendors will eventually lose participation privileges after multiple violations.
- All communications in the discussion group are to be considered confidential and not repeated outside the group. The group is based in the United States and will not allow or promote any conduct illegal under the laws of the United States. We cannot guarantee the privacy of any communications, but recording or reposting of conversations outside the group, or invasions of the privacy of participants, will be grounds for dismissal from the group.
- Please direct questions or comments to our special email address / messenger group at: TO BE DETERMINED (Session? Teleguard? EpicureanFriends? Preferably something that allows for anonymous signup. I question whether we want to use EpicureanFriends for this because I probably want to keep the participation agreement more rigorous than this one.)
I forgot a couple of very basic points that I should have included in what I posted earlier in this thread:
Maybe the most important aspect of the value of Epicurean philosophy is that it addresses the question of whether living happily is even *possible*!
If you believe that an arbitrary and capricious god is lurking behind every corner to punish you, then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you believe that you're going to burn in hell, or miss out on heaven, depending on whether you follow an arbitrary set of rules that you can't really live up to, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you think there are absolute standards written in the stars to which you have to conform, but don't want to conform to, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you think that there is a "Fate" the guarantees that you're going to be unhappy, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you think that your mind is a billiard ball and that every thought and action you take have been predetermined from the beginning of time, and that nothing you choose to do yourself can have any impact on your future to change it for the better, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you think that the atomic flux moves so fast that there's no way you can ever grasp with confidence anything going on around you, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you think that your senses are hopelessly inadequate to the task of determining anything with confidence, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you think that no knowledge of any kind is possible on any subject, no matter how close to you or important to you, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
If you think that pain is such a huge part of normal life that it overwhelms you, and that the best you can do is grasp scraps of happiness that last for only moments amid long expanses of agony, then then it is not going to be possible for you to live as happily as you could otherwise.
I bet I have missed some big ones in that list, but that's why we start at the principles of the "Epicurean Worldview" and then move to applications of these principles to our individual circumstances.
To close out this post we need to remember too that "possible" does not mean "guaranteed." It's also possible in life that you get struck by lightning, or a meteor, or a drunk driver, or cancer -- there are many things that are in fact beyond your control, so it is not in the power of any philosophy - even Epicurus - to *guarantee* a long and happy life.
But better by far than any other worldview or system, I like the odds of success that come from following Epicurus' views on how to tackle the issue of happiness and go after it.
I’ve realized through this discussion that between Epicureanism and neuroscience there’s a whole lot of interesting questions about the function of the senses.
And there's this constant crossover between the observation of "how they function" as opposed to drawing conclusions from those observations.
That's of course a deep philosophical discussion in itself, but I think it's worth noting that no matter how much progress we make in unwinding the "how" in terms of the biological or electrical or whatever processes we dig into, there's always another level of "how" that goes deeper than our current understanding.
I say that to emphasize that a lot of people seem to think that just by peeling back another layer of the "how" we'll be making a lot of progress when we observe a deeper level (there is some really good material in Frances Wright on this issue). And in a sense new observation does generally help us, but no matter how far we dig into the "how" we're always going to have to make some higher-level conclusions about our "world-view" with less information than we would like to have. We would "live" to be omniscient and know everything about everything, but we never will.
We therefore have to be intelligent about what we can expect to know, and what attitude to take toward the uncertainties, and that is where Epicurus takes a very different approach from most others. And I think it's there at that level that Epicurus plants his flag as "Pleasure" - which is very necessary and helpful as a flag and a high-level view, but which shouldn't be confused with a clinical description or prescription for a "pill" to take at a particular moment. Because Epicurus might well listen to a person's story and their particular set of problems and prescribe something that leads first to "Pain" before only later leading to "Pleasure."
I think I'm beating the proverbial dead horse now but I've seen this issue arise over and over and over and I think it helps to nail it down early in the study of Epicurus.
Those who come to Epicurus looking for immediate Pleasure will be disappointed if they find out (as many of them will) that they will be required to undergo the Pain that will come from putting aside deeply-held errors about the way the world works.
It would be nice to collect some pithy sayings that illustrate this point -- to the effect that
"If you're not sure where you're going, you can't get there simply by walking faster!"
There must be millions of sayings that illustrate how doubling down on current activities - or just "fine-tuning" them or "getting therapy" for them is a dead end.
Something about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
I think a kind of "therapy" can come out of a worldview -- which for Epicureanism is enjoyment of life and friendships which support the enjoyment of life.
Since we are trying to drill down and be as precise as possible, and I have spent years seeing people be obtuse about this and confuse the end and the means, let me reword that syntax to be absolutely clear which is the worldview and which is the therapy:
I think out of the Epicurean worldview - which is a view of the nature of the universe that is entirely devoid of supernatural aspects, a view of the nature of knowledge that conveys what can be expected of it and how it is acquired, and a view of the nature of a proper ethics that is not absolute but based on pleasure as the guide of life -- can come a kind of "therapy" -- which includes the pursuit of compatible friends, living prudently, studying nature, communicating with frankness, weighing pleasures and pains arising from each choice and avoidance, and maintaining proper attitudes toward "divinity" - among many other things!
An example of practical Epicurean advice for fixing problems and not just "coping" ->
PD27. Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.
It is hard to say how the idea within my mind of a particular story regarding the "best life" or the kind of life that will be most pleasurable, came to be. Perhaps it was past moments of a time in which everything seemed right in my life, but now my life is different and uncertain. My particular idea -- sort of a life "recipe" for happiness -- may never come to be again.
So it seems that I may have to settle for a lesser recipe -- one which is rather bland -- no salt or spices -- sure I won't keel over and die -- and maybe I will at times find pleasure. But I suppose this is why some people end up in Buddhism and doing meditation.
Most of the time when I hear people say things like this I think one appropriate response is:
You yourself are the only person who can decide how best to spend your time and what goals are appropriate. Epicurus can tell you about the nature of the universe and what is realistic to expect, but your particular situation is unique to you and you yourself have to think through the best course of action given those circumstances. There is no single "best life" for everyone, and it takes pain to achieve many pleasures, so only you can decide what course to take.
That's a bitter pill for some people to swallow, and maybe that's what you mean by "why some people end up in Buddhism" as a method of coping with that. But that's the nature of the universe (at least in Epicurean terms) so we all have to act as best we can with that sense of reality.
Kalosyni what i wrote here is also relevant -- these two threads are similar - RE: Atlantic article about enjoyment vs. pleasure
That was a lot of words to say the same thing in a lot of different ways in the hopes that one of them adequately conveys what I'm trying to say
I think I'm coming upon something more, but I'll wait until I've read more and have a deeper understanding of Epicurus's original teachings
Somehow I missed reading this post at the time it was posted - maybe we crossposted.
So it looks like I better address another fundamental point about this "what is pleasure?" discussion:
ReneLisa I see your perspective as intersecting with Kalosyni's recent post about REBT / CBT and therapy, and i think my comments in that thread apply here too. Is Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy Compatible with Epicureanism?
In my view, Epicurean views need to be thought of first as a "philosophy" of life - a world view. Yes Epicurean philosophy is practical, and yes it will lead in many practical directions, but Epicurean philosophy is not first and foremost a "therapy" as modern Stoicism has become.
My point here is that Epicurus' discussions about "pleasure" are - in my view - primarily tuned to addressing some basic philosophic questions. Epicurus is starting by asking "What is the nature of human life?" and "What is the goal of human life?" -- big picture items like those. In that field, the big alternatives argued by others are (1) Being pious (following god/religion like the priests tell you), or (2) Being "rational" (following "reason" or "logic" like Plato or Aristotle or Mr Spock might tell you), or (3) Being "virtuous" or being "a good person" (like the Stoics or fundamental "Humanists" might tell you). I am sure there are other major categories too.
I think that's the first way you have to understand Epicurus. When he says things to the effect that "pleasure is the goal of life" he's contrasting that conclusion to (1), (2), or (3) above. He's not prescribing a medication or giving precise clinical advice for particular person to follow at a particular moment.
AFTER you reject (1), (2), and (3) and realize why they are wrong (for reasons such as there is no "supernatural god" and no "fate" and no "afterlife" and the other things that go with the Epicurean worldview), then you're in a position to understand your basic place in the universe and the general direction you should be heading. And at that point you're equipped to identify and call in all the appropriate "therapeutic techniques" that might help someone in your personal situation to work through your current problems and move in the direction you want to go.
I just see the need to caution people that when they compare CBT or any "therapy" to Epicurean philosophy there's a hazard of making the mistake of comparing apples to oranges - they are very different things. To me, it would never make any sense to engage in any "therapy" without first having an idea of the meaning of "health" and where you need to be. That's what Epicurean philosophy provides -- an understanding of "health." Once you have that only then are you in a position to judge what particular medicine a particular person needs at a particular moment.
There are a series of 'practical' observations embedded into the texts that sort of correspond to the kind of wise advice that we traditionally get from parents, or friends, etc. Examples include:
VS43. The love of money, if unjustly gained, is impious, and, if justly gained, is shameful; for it is unseemly to be parsimonious, even with justice on one’s side.
VS44. The wise man, when he has accommodated himself to straits, knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered.
VS45. The study of nature does not make men productive of boasting or bragging, nor apt to display that culture which is the object of rivalry with the many, but high-spirited and self-sufficient, taking pride in the good things of their own minds and not of their circumstances.
VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.
VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.
VS48. We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content.
VS49. It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he does not know the Nature of the universe, but still gives some credence to myths. So, without the study of Nature, there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.
But my main point is that everything wise to do in life isn't philosophy, which is a complete worldview. A series of "therapeutic techniques" can't take the place of a philosophy. And that's especially true since "therapy" divorced from answering questions about "Toward what goal?" can be very manipulative and even dangerous.
That's essentially what has happened in modern Stoicism, and it's why so many Stoics are confused about their philosophy and think it's so similar to Epicurean philosophy. The modern Stoics have stopped stressing their ancient foundations ("virtue" as the goal, in which pleasure is a highly negative thing) to the point where modern Stoicism has little or anything to do with what the Stoics originally developed. I would submit that modern Stoicism is in fact now focused on issues of living 'happily," while for the ancient Stoics what we think of as living "happily" was one of the major *obstacles* to their goal - living "virtuously."
We could take that observation off in great detail - and i think we have discussed it in the past - but the point under discussion here is not to give Stoicism a well-deserved bashing but to point out the limits of CBT / REBT. (If you want to read a bashing of Stoicism, one unexpected place to read a good one are the parts of CIcero's "On Ends" which are devoted to examining the Stoics.)
One other thing I would point out is that it's important to remember what Epicurus said about pain -- sometimes we DO choose pain in order to avoid a worse pain or achieve a greater pleasure. The "sometimes" is the issue - we have to think through carefully what our goal is and why we may choose to undergo pain.
Is "Behavioral Therapy" going to answer questions like that, if "therapy" is focused purely on "reducing pain" or "coping with pain" without answering the bigger philosophic question of whether the pain a person is going through is "appropriate"?
A medical doctor can pretty uniformly know that "treating pain" is the obvious goal. "Being tired" can be caused by all sorts of disease processes which a doctor will have medications to treat.
But what if you are "tired" because you have just engaged in lengthy exercise toward losing weight or generally improving your health? Would a doctor look to medicate away your "tiredness" simply because you are tired?
A philosophy of life has to identify the goal of living and analyze any current problems in the context of obtaining ultimate goals. Any "therapy" that represents itself as helping to adjust your behavior without first analyzing the reasons for your situation and your ultimate goals in life may just prolong the period of time of wandering in darkness.
I see one of the links states this:
REBT? What is it?
What is Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT)? Created by Albert Ellis, REBT is a form of the very popular cognitive behavior therapy and has been dominating approaches to psychological treatment since the 1950s. You might be wondering what distinguishes REBT from other forms of psychotherapy techniques. In essence, Albert Ellis created it as a philosophy of living – its foundation is the belief that it is not the events in our lives that cause our emotions, rather it is our beliefs that cause us to experience emotions such as anger, depression, and anxiety. It is a mode to consider and change our irrational beliefs and has shown to have a favorable effect on reducing emotional pain.
Those are statements that bother me. REBT may be a very effective therapy and technique, but it's certainly not a "philosophy of living."
And this sounds like pure mind-over-matter Stoicism; ' its foundation is the belief that it is not the events in our lives that cause our emotions, rather it is our beliefs that cause us to experience emotions such as anger, depression, and anxiety." Read in a certain way that may be ok, but to imply that you can change real issues in your life simply by what you "believe" about them is more pseudo-stoic nonsense. If someone has a medical problem they need a doctor, not to change their "belief" about their medical condition.
Much like Stoicism itself it sounds to me like this is making claims on which it can't deliver, and it's offering itself as a full philosophy of life when it's really closer to a coping mechanism.
The only thing I would tweak on Don's response is this:
not every pleasurable feeling should be chosen because some pleasurable feelings will lead to pain.
Since you're early in the reading of Epicurus, Renelliza, I would stress that this probably needs to be stated as:
"...not every pleasurable feeling should be chosen because some pleasurable feelings will lead to MORE PAIN THAN THAT PLEASURE IS WORTH TO YOU".
I think Don and i are together on that point and he probably will agree with me - I am sure he will say so if he does not.
The same people who will argue that "absence of pain" is the heart of Epicurean philosophy rather than "Pleasure" will argue to you that it is necessary according to Epicurus to banish every pain at every moment, and to never take any course of action that will lead to any pain whatsoever.
That's clearly NOT what Epicurus says in the letter to Menoeceus or other places -- Epicurus is realistic and knows that life requires exertion, and much exertion is painful, and yet we sometimes choose a painful action anyway not only to avoid worse pain, but to achieve pleasures that greatly outweigh the cost in pain.
If Don or anyone thinks I am misstating that please correct me.
Letter to Menoeceus:
For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good.
And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time.
Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.
We haven't talked about cognitive behavioral therapy in a long while, and i am not up on the details. In general, it's definitely more related to Stoicism, and in fact the leading internet Stoic, Donald Robertson, is primarily (from what I gather) a CBT teacher.
I seem to remember this section on criticism of CBT at Wikipedia seemed to be longer:
Philosophical concerns with CBT methods
The methods employed in CBT research have not been the only criticisms; some individuals have called its theory and therapy into question.[216]
Slife and Williams write that one of the hidden assumptions in CBT is that of determinism, or the absence of free will. They argue that CBT holds that external stimuli from the environment enter the mind, causing different thoughts that cause emotional states: nowhere in CBT theory is agency, or free will, accounted for.[206]
Another criticism of CBT theory, especially as applied to major depressive disorder (MDD), is that it confounds the symptoms of the disorder with its causes.[209]
I don't have any doubt but that REBT or CBT or many other types of therapies can be somewhat helpful depending on context, just like some people need medication and all the spoken-word therapy in the word isn't going to help them.
So that's about all I can offer. Therapy is no substitute for a proper philosophy, but probably sometimes it's exactly therapy that someone is needing.
For anyone coming across this post in the future I have found the longer version of the "criticism" section of the CBT wikipedia page, and I posted it here.
Ok that's my first stab at a longer answer to ReneLiza. We need some of our other regulars to weigh in on this question, which is probably one of the ones we'll encounter most often in new people.
And ReneLiza if the responses you are getting are not addressing the question or you want comment on more specific areas let us know!
True, I would choose not to engage in the experience altogether, but is that original sensation still "good"? Is masochistic fulfillment "evil"? If the sheer sensations would be painful or pleasurable out of context then how do we classify them (especially as in my example where the context is initially unknown)?
Or is this just unnecessary overanalysis which I do quite enjoy?
Reneliza I did not mean to avoid the question. I was hoping some others would jump in and I hope others besides Don still will, because this is such a key question.
My basic response as hinted above is that the "good" and "bad" terminology is what has to be scrutinized. Those are very abstract terms, and they are very similar to the "virtue" question. There is a lot of discussion in Epicurean philosophy to the effect that "virtue" and "good" and "evil" are entirely relative concepts, and that they vary entirely by context.
On the other hand, pleasure and pain are sensations, and while we are experiencing them there is no mistake as to what we are experiencing.
You are quite right though that the very same experience can change from pleasurable to painful very quickly, but while we are experiencing it, pleasure and pain are given to us as perceptions which our minds do not evaluate separately. To the extent we are talking about mental pains and pleasures, those too vary quickly, but are unmistakeable for the moments we are experiencing them.
I don't think I have previously addressed you personally on the suggestion to read the Dewitt book as soon as you can. It is now flawless, but it is a very good general introduction to the philosophy, and it will acquaint you with the basic issues and give you a good overview faster than any other way.
If you are an experienced reader of philosophy you can consider reading Diogenes Laertius or Lucretius directly, but I think those require significant background in philosophy before you can catch the depth of them.
You might possibly be interested in "A Few Days In Athens" as that covers your question in "story" form, but that depends on your tastes.
For now, the thumbnail summary is that Epicurus rejected over-analysis of the question of "what is the good?" and "what is the highest good?" which most of the other schools were fond of obsessing over. Epicurus concluded that the universe is entirely natural, without supernatural influence, and that the only directives of nature we are given by which to know what to pursue and what to avoid ultimately come down to "pleasure" and "pain" -- which we know without mistake as feelings.
You might well profit from reading the Torquatus narrative in Cicero's On Ends, as that too is pretty direct and understandable on this point: Cicero's "Torquatus" Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - from "On Ends"
You will quickly grasp the point that Epicurus is making, and you'll see that when he says things close to "all pleasure is good" the analysis that has to be understood is much more focused on the implications of "Good"
Reneliza if you were to ask that question many places on the internet you might get an answer like this:
Introduction
In this passage from the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.), summarizes two of his most famous ethical doctrines: that death should not be feared and that pleasure is the highest good. However, pleasure for Epicurus is not the indulgence of fine foods, drinking beer, and sex. Pleasure is simply the absence of pain. So for Epicurus, a simple life of quiet contemplation is the most pleasurable and therefore ideal life.
-------
And from that you might conclude that fine food, drinking beer, and sex are not pleasures at all!
I for one would disagree strongly that that is what Epicurus taught.
So this is a very important topic.
