>Epicurus was NOT a pleasure maximizer. Ataraxia is NOT a state of constant, maximal pleasure. It is a state more akin to tranquility, to be achieved by moderating the appetites and practicing something not very different from Stoic virtue.

There are different interpretations of Epicurus on this point, and with good reason. Part of the issue is the paucity of surviving primary sources; we only have three letters which were (ostensibly) authored by Epicurus himself, and everything else is second-hand accounts of his philosophy, often from a hostile perspective, written centuries after Epicurus' own death. ETA: I forgot to mention, we also have one collection of maxims, knowns as The Principle Doctrines, which I think most agree is a genuinely Epicurean text, but it was probably produced by later disciples of the school. Additionally, there is another collection, known as The Vatican Sayings, however, the provenance of its points is less certain.

That being said, the interpretation which you have forwarded is what I like to refer to as the 'tranquilist' interpretation. Ironically, while it is a correction to the view the Epicurus was a mindless, debauched reveler, it is still inaccurate. A bit of an overcorrection, if you will.

Epicurus was a hedonist, in the truest sense of the term. His goal was to maximize pleasure, and to minimize pain. However, he thought that 'ataraxia' was itself the absolute maximization of pleasure. In contrast to the Stoics, virtue was only ever instrumental to Epicurus, never the goal.

"And this is why we say that pleasure is the starting point of living blessedly. For we recognize this as our first innate good, and this is our starting point for every choice and avoidance...." -Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

"No pleasure is a bad thing in itself. But the things which produce certain pleasures bring troubles many times greater than the pleasures." - Principle Doctrines, VIII

The key here is understanding that, for Epicurus, there was no neutral state between pleasure and pain. At any given moment, you could only experience pleasure or pain, but not both at the same time, and you must be experiencing one of them. Ataraxia was not an empty tranquility, it was a state without troubles of the mind or body, in which all desires had been fulfilled or vanquished, a sort of contentment. Think of how you feel after a really great meal, when you are just sitting there not wanting more of anything really, just enjoying your satisfaction. I think of it less as 'tranquility' and more like 'contentment'.

"The removal of all feeling of pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever a pleasurable feeling is present, for as long as it is present, there is neither a feeling of pain nor a feeling of distress, nor both together." - Principle Doctrines, III

Furthermore, Epicurus' simplicity of living was not because he valued that mode as some sort of ideal, like the Cynics, but because of practical concerns. Maintaining a lavish lifestyle carries its own burdens, and it is not a sure-thing. One can always lose their wealth and station, and if you have grown too-accustomed to high-living, then you are at even greater risk; you risk losing not only your wealth, but also your joy. Likewise, if a simpler man happens into more extravagant fair, he is better situated to actually appreciate and enjoy it.

"And we believe that self-sufficiency is a great good, not in order that we might make do with few things under all circumstances, but so that if we do not have a lot we can make do with few, being genuinely convinced that those who least need extravagance enjoy it most...." - Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

You see, then, Epicurus was indeed a "pleasure maximizer," he just approached the issue more shrewdly than others. I hope you'll forgive my little rant, but Epicurus and Epicureanism are of special interest to me.