Skip to content

Question

What is the difference between Stoicism and Epicureanism?

Two rival schools agreed that philosophy should make you happy, but they disagreed sharply about what happiness is made of and where it comes from.

Updated

The short answer

Stoics hold that virtue, excellence of character, is the only good and the only thing that makes a life happy, while everything else, including pleasure and pain, is an indifferent to be used well or badly. Epicureans hold that pleasure is the good and pain the evil, and organize the wise life around achieving a stable, untroubled state rather than chasing sensation. The two schools agreed philosophy should secure happiness, but disagreed about what happiness consists of, and that disagreement shapes their differing views on self-sufficiency, friendship, and social duty.

Key points

  • Stoics locate the good entirely in virtue; Epicureans locate it in pleasure and the absence of pain.
  • For Stoics, health, wealth, and reputation are indifferents that do not themselves make a life good or bad.
  • Epictetus argues Epicurus's own love for his hypothetical child shows that a pleasure-based ethics cannot explain natural affection.
  • Epictetus claims Epicurus's denial of natural fellowship among people undermines itself, since persuading others depends on the trust that fellowship provides.
  • Seneca clarifies that an untroubled Stoic soul means one that cannot be harmed, not one that feels nothing.
  • Epictetus uses a conversation with an Epicurean to argue that if the soul outranks the body, the goods of the soul, meaning virtue and judgment, must outrank bodily pleasure.

The longer answer

Both schools started from the same question: what is the good, the thing that makes a life go well? They gave different answers, and that single disagreement produces most of the differences you notice between them.

The Stoics held that only virtue, excellence of character, is good, and only vice is bad. Everything else, health, wealth, reputation, even life and death, is an "indifferent," something that can be used well or badly but does not itself make you happy or miserable. Epicurus, by contrast, held that pleasure is the good and pain the evil, and that the wise life is organized around securing a stable, untroubled state rather than accumulating pleasures one after another.

That difference in first principles shows up in how each school talks about self-sufficiency and other people. Seneca reports Epicurus criticizing thinkers like Stilbo who claimed the wise man needs no friends because his soul is untouched by external harm (Moral Letters 9.1). This is a useful reminder that both schools cared about precision on what invulnerability actually means, even though they built it on different foundations, Stoics on virtue as the sole good, Epicureans on the avoidance of disturbance.

Epictetus presses harder on where Epicurus's foundation leads. He grants that Epicurus sees, correctly, that human beings are naturally social, but says that once Epicurus places the good in "the husk," meaning bodily pleasure, he can no longer account for that sociability (Discourses I 23). Epictetus's evidence is close to home: even Epicurus cannot bring himself to say a parent should feel nothing for a child, because once a child is born it is no longer in our power not to love it and care about it (Discourses I 23). Epictetus reads this as Epicurus's own affections betraying his theory. A man who really believed pleasure was the standard, Epictetus says, could treat other people the way one treats a swarm of flies, and yet Epicurus does not live that way, and does not advise others to.

Epictetus makes a similar move about Epicurus's claim that human beings share no natural fellowship. Whether or not this is fair to Epicurus's actual arguments, it shows what the Stoics thought was at stake: not just which pleasures to pursue, but whether an ethics built on bodily good can explain the paternal love and social feeling everyone visibly has.

The two schools also differ on which part of us matters most. In a conversation Epictetus stages with an Epicurean administrator, he asks what is best for a human being, given that a person consists of soul, body, and external things (Discourses III 7). The Epicurean concedes it is not the flesh, that Maximus did not sail through winter for his son's sake merely to gratify the body, and that the soul is better than the body (Discourses III 7). Epictetus uses the concession to press his own conclusion: if the soul is best, the good things of the soul, judgment and character, must be better than the good things of the body, which is the Stoic position, not the Epicurean one.

If you want the practical difference: Epicureanism asks you to arrange your desires so that pleasure is stable and pain is minimized, largely by wanting less and choosing your circle carefully. Stoicism asks you to locate your good entirely in the quality of your judgments and choices, so that nothing external, including pleasure and pain themselves, can take your happiness from you. Read Epictetus's exchange with the Epicurean administrator and ask yourself the same question he asks: of soul, body, and external things, which is actually best, and does your life show that you believe your own answer?

Primary passages

But Epicurus knows that if once a child is born, it is no longer in our power not to love it nor care about it.

Epictetus, Discourses I 23 Read in context

Epictetus argues Epicurus's own experience of parental love undercuts his theory that pleasure alone is the good.

Even Epicurus perceives that we are by nature social, but having once placed our good in the husk he is no longer able to say anything else.

Epictetus, Discourses I 23 Read in context

Epictetus's central charge: Epicurus's foundation in bodily pleasure cannot account for the sociability he still admits we have.

Consider, therefore, whether it is not better to say “a soul that cannot be harmed,” or “a soul entirely beyond the realm of suffering.

Seneca, Moral Letters Vol I 9.2 Read in context

Seneca clarifies what Epicurus's critics, and the Stoics, actually mean by an untroubled soul: immunity to harm, not absence of feeling.

What then do we possess which is better than the flesh? The soul, he replied. And the good things of the best, are they better, or the good things of the worse? The good things of the best.

Epictetus, Discourses III 7 Read in context

Epictetus draws out an Epicurean's own concession to argue that the goods of the soul, not the body, must be what is truly best.

Important distinctions

Freedom from feeling versus freedom from harm

Seneca notes that the Greek term Stoics and their critics debated can be mistranslated as a soul that endures nothing, when the intended sense is a soul that cannot be harmed in the first place. This matters because critics of Stoicism, ancient and modern, often accuse it of demanding emotionlessness, when the actual claim is about invulnerability of one's good to external events, not the absence of feeling.

Pleasure as the good versus pleasure as a preferred indifferent

Epicureans make pleasure the standard of value itself. Stoics do not deny that pleasure can be pleasant, but they deny it is what makes a life good. A Stoic can enjoy a meal or a friendship without treating that enjoyment as the measure of whether the choice was right; the measure is whether the choice reflected good judgment.

Objections and replies

Is Epictetus being fair to Epicurus?

Epictetus's arguments in the Discourses are polemical. He infers that Epicurus's parental love and his own act of persuading others refute Epicurean doctrine, but this could be read as Epicurus failing to live up to a theory rather than the theory itself being false. A committed Epicurean might reply that valuing a child's company because it brings deep, stable pleasure is perfectly consistent with hedonism, not a betrayal of it.

Reply

Epictetus's point is narrower than a full refutation: he is showing that Epicurus's own practice, caring for a child no matter the cost, or arguing publicly for a shared truth, presupposes a form of attachment and fellowship that a strict hedonist calculus struggles to justify from pleasure alone. Whether this fully defeats Epicureanism is a fair question, but it does put pressure on where, exactly, the Epicurean account grounds duties that go beyond one's own comfort.

Don't Stoics and Epicureans converge in practice?

Both schools counsel simplicity, self-command, and detachment from excessive desire, and both produced people who lived modestly and helped friends. A skeptic might ask whether the disagreement about first principles, virtue versus pleasure, makes any real difference in how a life is actually lived.

Reply

The convergence is real at the level of everyday habits, but the passages show the difference surfaces exactly where it matters most: whether you would sacrifice comfort for another person's sake because it is right, or because it ultimately serves your own tranquility. Epictetus's question to the Epicurean administrator, which is better, the goods of the soul or the goods of the body, is meant to expose that even shared practices rest on different reasons, and reasons shape what you do when the two goods actually conflict.

Practice this in Stoa

Guided courses in the Stoa app that put this into daily practice.

Related questions

Podcast discussions

Concepts

Philosophers

  • Epictetus Epictetus argues that freedom does not come from your circumstances but from correctly sorting what is up to you from what is not.

Sources

  1. Epictetus, Discourses I Primary text, Stoa library
  2. Epictetus, Discourses III Primary text, Stoa library
  3. Seneca, Moral Letters Vol I Primary text, Stoa library