Right. Epicurus makes a distinction between the different kinds of pleasures to be sought after that serves a similar function as the distinction the Stoics make between things which are in our power to control, and things that are outside of our control. Both schools of thought recognize that human beings become vulnerable to the experience of harm when we focus ourselves on matters that are not natural to us. And so, a Stoic and an Epicurean would both be quite disciplined in how they approached life.

They would definitely give very different accounts of what made their lives "good," but I bet unless you asked them to give you their reasons, you probably wouldn't be able to easily tell one apart from the other.

The Epicurean would likely be a little more of a recluse, whereas a Stoic might be more inclined to be "in the world" and interacting with the community at large, which she believed she had a duty to participate in. I don't think the Epicurean would feel the same way, and might be more likely to live "off the grid" as it were. The Stoic's "Off the Grid" would be her Inner Citadel.

"This Epicurean ideal of maximal pleasure/minimal pain has become thedefault ideal of the good life in our modern world. But the hedonistideal is not the only game in town, and in antiquity, it wasn’t even themain game."

Has this guy even _read_ any Epicurus?

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.

Epicurus would be absolutely horrified by what counts as "happiness" in modern popular culture. Unlimited consumerism with no restraint. Wasteful capitalism and unrbidled hedonistic sex was not his idea of a good time. He wanted to stay in his garden, cook simple foods, maintain intimate friendships, and practice the love of wisdom.

People get Epicurus wrong nearly 100% of the time.