Stoicism vs Epicureanism: where the two schools agreed and where they split

Stoicism and Epicureanism were born in the same city at the same time. Epicurus opened his school, the Garden, in Athens around 306 BCE;¹ Zeno began teaching in the painted colonnade a few years later.² For the next five centuries they were each other’s main rival, and they are still usually taught as opposites: the Stoic who endures, the Epicurean who enjoys.

Both caricatures are wrong. The schools agreed about a great deal, and the clearest proof is the Stoic who kept quoting the other side.

The short answer

	Stoicism	Epicureanism
The goal of life	Virtue: wisdom, justice, courage and moderation. It is the only true good.2	Pleasure, understood as freedom from bodily pain and mental disturbance.1
Virtue	Enough on its own for a happy life	Needed for a pleasant life, but valued for the pleasure it brings1
The universe	Ordered by reason; everything happens by fate	Atoms and empty space; a small random “swerve” means not everything is fixed1
The gods	Present in the world and providential	Exist, but take no interest in human affairs1
Public life	A duty: take part in your community	Avoid politics where you can1
Death	Natural, and not an evil	“Nothing to us”1

Two caricatures to drop

The Stoic is not made of stone. Stoics aimed to be free of passions such as fear and anger, which they saw as mistaken judgments, not to feel nothing. See the Stoics on emotions.

The Epicurean is not a hedonist. The pleasure Epicurus meant was mostly the absence of pain and worry, reached by wanting little: plain food, friends, a quiet mind.¹ Seneca, who disagreed with him, still said so plainly:

Where they agree

On how to live day to day, the two schools are often close. Both say to limit your desires, both say death is not to be feared, and both put friendship near the centre of a good life.¹ Seneca borrows Epicurus on exactly these points:

Where they split

What makes a life good. For a Stoic, virtue is the only good, and it is enough for happiness. Epicurus agreed that the virtuous person is happy, but said it is the pleasure virtue brings, not virtue itself, that makes them so. Seneca calls this a distinction without a difference:

Justice. Epicurus held that there is no justice by nature, and that the reason not to do wrong is the fear of being found out. Seneca rejects the first half and accepts the second:

The world and our place in it. The Stoics saw a universe ordered by reason, in which a good person takes their part in public life. The Epicureans saw atoms in empty space, gods who keep to themselves, and a good life lived quietly among friends, away from politics.¹²

Seneca, the scout in the enemy’s camp

Seneca is the best evidence of how much the two schools shared. In his letters to Lucilius he quotes or discusses Epicurus over and over, especially early on, when he often gives Lucilius a saying to take away and it is most often one of Epicurus’s. He explains why in the second letter:

By our count, Seneca mentions Epicurus or the Epicureans in 39 of his 124 letters, in 61 passages, and 24 of those letters fall in the first 30. Later the borrowing stops and the arguing begins, in letters such as 85 and 97 above. Pick a letter to see where Epicurus comes in.

When Lucilius asks why a Stoic keeps quoting the founder of a rival school, Seneca’s answer is that good sense belongs to everyone:

Which suits you?

If you want a philosophy that asks you to act, to take on your share of the world’s work and to hold yourself to a high standard whatever happens, Stoicism is the better fit. If you want one that asks you to step back, want less and spend your time with friends, Epicureanism is. Seneca’s example suggests you can learn from both.

To start reading the Stoics, see where to start or begin with Seneca’s letters.