Posts by Cassius

The vacation example is useful to discuss. You've told us that on your own reading that small ordinary statistically real risks taken for an "unnecessary" pleasure can't be justified. You admit that this troubles you, but that you can't find another way to read PD3/18/20-21 and Men.128/131.

I'd ask you to consider the possibility that this is the texts correcting themselves. When a sincere, careful interpretation produces a result even its author finds radical and troubling, that's usually evidence against one of his premises. We've already identified the likely origin of your problem - the completeness requirement that you've twice said you can't ground in Epicurus.

Epicurus taught people who drove no cars but rode roads and sailed seas that were, if anything, more dangerous than a modern highway, and nothing in the record suggests he told them not to travel to see a friend.

As to the deathbed letter - saying the pain "doesn't interfere with blessedness" because Epicurus reports being happy - that's a conclusion, not a test. This tells us the rule after the fact, but gives no way to predict a result before the fact. What would you have said in advance, not knowing the outcome, about whether that pain would interfere?

Is the position you're defending your account of what Epicurus's texts actually say, or is it your own preferred view? You say that Epicurus should have been something other than what he was.

People here on this thread need to understand clearly to what extent you yourself admit that your argument is not required by the texts themselves.

Quote from Max DuBoff

(Separately, I think Epicurus should've embraced value dualism rather than hedonism, arguing that the absence of pain and pleasure are both intrinsic goods; but my interpretation above stands even without this point.)

Max:

On the "interference" test: You've now said the rule isn't "always avoid pain," it's "avoid pain that interferes with enjoying katastematic pleasure." And that pain which doesn't interfere with katastematic pleasure because anticipation or recollection lets you manage it is fine to accept.

But what does "interfere" actually mean?

If "interferes" means displaces katastematic pleasure at that moment, since you agree that pleasure and pain are exhaustive and mutually exclusive — then I don't see that you are saying anything new. Every pain "interferes" with tranquility by definition, and that takes us back to giving up 17 units of pleasure to avoid 3 units of pain.

But if "interferes" means something like "disrupts" a settled state going forward, as a stomach ache from overeating does, then what you're describing is just prudence: weighing a pain against a pleasure with practical wisdom managing the accounting. That's not a rule that competes with "weigh total pleasure against total pain." That is weighing total pleasure against total pain, with prudence doing what Epicurus always said it does and it's the ordinary Epicurean calculus of pleasure and pain that anyone can understand.

So which is it? If it's the second, I don't think 'refer to tranquility' names a rule distinct from ordinary pleasure/pain calculus anymore — you've just brought back prudence in under a different name.

Now let's move to blessedness — I'll just say that I think your entire framework is wrong, and here is why. Epicurus' work must be taken as a whole and assembled logically without leaving out any of the key premises. Just like there are only bodies and space in the universe, there are only two feelings given by nature to decide what to choose and what to avoid. It is as inconceivable that we are going to end up with a goal other than the positive goal that nature gave us - pleasure - as it would be for anything in the universe to be supernatural, or consist of something other than bodies and space. But that's exactly what it appears to me the "Tranquility" argument does - it sets out a goal higher than and different from pleasure.

"Blessedness" or "Happiness" isn't a separate ingredient that only certain approved pleasures are allowed to contribute to. It's the character of a whole life, built from every pleasure in it — kinetic and katastematic together, held across memory, present experience, and anticipation. Nothing in the text requires sorting pleasures into a "counts" bin and a "doesn't count" bin before happiness can emerge from the mix. Friendship contributes to blessedness by being one of the richest sources of pleasure there is, whether that pleasure is 'active' (joy of company, conversation, shared meals, aid given and received) or 'stable' (confidence that comes from knowing help is there if you need it). There's no dilemma to resolve, because nothing forces friendship or any other active or stable pleasure to be only one or the other before it's allowed to count.

The dilemma only feels forced on you because it's built on the same premise you've already told me twice you can't ground in Epicurus — that a pleasure must be complete/perfect to confer blessedness. Based on that, you think the kinetic pleasures Epicurus talks so much about are structurally locked out from contributing to happiness. Drop that premise and the dilemma dissolves along with it.

Much of this goes back to the debate that others like Gosling & Taylor and Nikolsky have stated in much more detail. Your argument requires what I would say is unjustified emphasis of "stable" pleasures over the "active" pleasures that Epicurus indeed took note of, but for which his most devoted followers wrote and acted as if it was of no consequence, and for which there would be no real argument at all but for these passages such as PD3, PD18, PD20, and Menoeceus 128, which can all be given complete and consistent meaning without any such construction.

In my view this argument and many others are best settled by looking at the lives of the ancient Epicureans as they are recorded to have lived them. When I look at the life of Epicurus I see a man who devoted his life to campaigning as energetically as he could for what he saw was both the truth and a better way of life that rejects the claims of supernatural religion. He certainly knew that that path might well cost him a great deal of pain, and even his life, but he lived it anyway, and considered himself happy, even though the "tranquility" argument would have led him to take an entirely different course.

Your rule licenses risks taken to secure the tranquility of yourself or your friends already inside your circle. It doesn't explain why the Epicureans wrote and erected inscriptions and campaigned publicly, for strangers who owed them nothing and could offer them no security in return, against the most powerful religious and philosophical authorities of their day. That's not friendship-insurance. Those are choices made by men who had a clear idea of happiness that they thought was worth pursuing regardless of what it cost them.

Note: I posted this before seeing posts 84 and 85, but I'll comment on them as needed later.

Max,

The twentieth-meal example is very useful.

Let me restate it to make sure I have it right: given a choice between 10 units of pleasure/0 pain and 30 units of pleasure/3 pain, "refer your actions to the goal of nature as tranquility" tells you to take the first option — forfeiting 17 units of net pleasure - solely to avoid the 3 units of pain.

Is that a fair restatement of your own answer?

So you're saying that on your view, no amount of net pleasure gained can outweigh even a modest amount of pain accepted to get it. That's the "even a small amount of pain is too much to pay for a large amount of pleasure" position I've been thinking your view amounts to. Is that correct?

As to what that would mean, Epicurus wrote on his last day, in real physical agony, that the joy of memory and friendship that day outweighed (or arrayed against in the military metaphor) the pain in his body. This is a direct claim that a great pleasure was worth to him a very great pain, in full net balance. Regardless about what we think of whether he changed his calculation as the pain got worse (which would be entirely reasonable to do), Epicurus did not avoid or forfeit those pleasures in advance just because great pain was involved.

Your rule would have told Epicurus in advance never to have made the friendships at all, since every friendship carries the certainty of future grief — real pain — in exchange for something "merely additive" and therefore, on your account, not counting toward blessedness. Do you accept that consequence?

Second thing, maybe even more important. You've now stated at least twice that you don't know why Epicurus would be committed to the claim that a blessed life has to be complete or perfect in the Platonic sense. Everything you're saying after that , that additive pleasures can't confer blessedness, friendship is instrumental rather than itself a pleasure/good , seems built entirely on that starting point. If you can't explain that reasoning, why would we find it persuasive to overturn all the many statements commending Pleasure as the goal?

As to friendship, PD27 doesn't call friendship just a useful tool alongside the virtues — it calls it "far the greatest" of the things which "produce the blessedness of the complete life." If friendship is instrumental the way courage or prudence are instrumental, why does Epicurus single it out instead of listing it among them? I think Epicurus is telling us the pleasure of friendship is a major part of what a full life is made of, not that it's a mechanism that occasionally throws off some pleasant ("nice") side effects.

I don't think "tranquility as prime directive" survives contact with either the deathbed letter or PD27. I'd like to hear you take those two head-on., because that's what is of most benefit to the forum - providing understandable answers that are of practical use to the kind of normal people to whom Epicurus appealed in the ancient world. It can't have required a degree in philosophy to understand Epicurus in the ancient world, and it can't require that now.

As Cassius Longinus said himself to Cicero,

... For it is hard to convince men that “the good is to be chosen for its own sake”; but that pleasure and tranquillity of mind is acquired by virtue, justice, and the good is both true and demonstrable. Why, Epicurus himself, from whom all the Catiuses and Amafiniuses in the world, incompetent translators of terms as they are, derive their origin, lays it down that “to live a life of pleasure is impossible without living a life of virtue and justice.”

Why pleasure AND tranquility? Are you saying that as with the title to "Living For Pleasure," Cassius Longinus should have written "but that pleasure (and by that i mean tranquility) is acquired by virtue, justice, and the good is both true and demonstrable?"

Catius and Amafinius may not have been the smoothest of translators of images vs. spectres, but is it really likely they too missed something as basic as not understanding the right priority between pleasure and tranquility?

Quote from Max DuBoff

. So I think I'm on firm ground in saying that further pains don't contribute to blessedness, i.e., don't increase pleasure beyond its maximum (the maximum which is noted in PD 3)

Max I presume the underline "pains" I underlined there is a typo?

Whoever made those videos no doubt loves that surviving bust with the busted-out eyebrow that makes Epicurus look like a whimsical druggie -- and he/she/they probably love that portrayal every bit as much as I hate it But no matter how much it's disfigured it's still better looking than the look in this last video.

Note: I have just added the following to the first post in this thread:

I have been asked to explain why I would post a thread about "Worst" videos on Epicurus. The reason is that as this website has clearly stated on its masthead for over ten years, our purpose is to study and promote Epicurean philosophy. That includes defending Epicurus and calling out falsehoods when they occur and when it makes sense to do so. Youtube videos are very examples for discussion.

You will recall that our current front page describes the website mission in this way:

Quote

"EpicureanFriends.com is an internet community dedicated to the study and promotion of Classical Epicurean Philosophy. Just as Epicurus taught, our foundation is built on the study of Nature and reliance on the senses as sufficient for obtaining knowledge of the universe. Unlike Stoicism or Aristotelianism, which bear some superficial similarities, Epicurus affirmed that Nature has no mystical forces over it, so there is no supernatural basis for virtue or morality. Rather than virtue as an end it itselfa, Epicurus held that Nature calls all living things to pursue Happiness understood as a life of Pleasure as the goal of life. Therefore rather than "Ataraxia," "Tranquility," "Virtue," "Piety," "Minimalism," "Asceticism," or any other "Ism," we focus on what Epicurus actually taught, not on developing our own eclectic blends through freelancing, especially not with Buddhism, Stoicism and Humanism.

The videos that follow in this thread are simply awful - they are woefully incorrect and discredit Epicurus by associating him with ideas that are among the list in the box above. While it might be disturbing for some people here to watch these, it is in fact true that in overcoming obstacles, what doesn't kill us does make us stronger. The true teachings of Epicurus are hotly contested today, and we have to understand the opposing frameworks if we are to diagnose errors and correct them in our own minds.

Those who can go through these videos and immediately spot the Stoic, Buddhist, Ascetic, and Tranquilist presumptions are far ahead of the game in understanding what Epicurus is all about.

There are many other such videos and over time I'll probably add more, but we can also discuss any questions about these in this thread.

The old record-holder has been dethroned! The new recordholder for worst video is here:

Max, thank you for working through all of this so carefully.

On the question Would a tranquil person with no friends, no joys, no positive pleasures — just an undisturbed, empty mind — count as having achieved the blessed life in full?, you wrote:

Quote from Max DuBoff

4) As I understand Epicurus: Yes in theory, but this could never actually happen.

I don't think that the "in theory" gives us a clear answer as to what your position really is. You've just told us that your definition of blessedness, taken on its own terms, is fully satisfied by a life with no friends, no joy, no positive pleasure of any kind — nothing but an undisturbed absence of pain. The only thing keeping that from being your actual recommendation is a claim that it can't happen in practice, not a principled reason why it shouldn't count as the best possible life if it did. That's a strange place for a consistent theory of the good life to land. If your account of blessedness doesn't care whether the life it's describing contains anything anyone would actually want, in what sense is it still a theory of human flourishing rather than an edge case your chosen framework happens to generate?

On the textual basis for "some goods don't contribute to blessedness" — you cited PD20, Men. 128, and PD03. But don't those passages actually establish that once pain is removed, there is no further need to seek anything more. That's a claim about cessation of motivation. What your position would need to show is the stronger claim that additional pleasures, once had, don't count toward the blessedness already achieved. Those are two different claims. "I don't need to look for more" is not the same as "if more comes anyway, it doesn't add to my good."

On friendship, you said its contribution to blessedness runs through security against future fear. But doesn't that just relocate the problem rather than solve it? More security, and a richer stock of memories to draw on, would seem to be exactly as "additive" as more ice cream. Is there a natural limit to how much friendship or security is "enough," past which more of it stops contributing to blessedness, the way Epicurus treats natural and necessary desire as self-limiting? If there is such a limit for friendship, I'd like to hear what it is and where it comes from. If there isn't, then I don't see how friendship escapes the very rule you're using to exclude other additive pleasures from counting.

On what you would actually tell someone to do differently, I am looking for a concrete case where "refer your actions to the goal of nature as tranquility" and "weigh total pleasure against total pain" would recommend different choices. You answered by questioning whether katastematic and kinetic pleasure share a common scale at all. That doesn't answer the question I asked. Can you give me one actual choice where your priority rule and the ordinary whole-life pleasure-pain calculus come apart? If you can't produce one, I think that's itself telling us something: that this may be a dispute over which word gets to be called "the goal," and not a dispute that changes a single thing about how a person should actually live.

Last thing: you've now told me twice, in almost the same words, that you don't know why an additive pleasure can't be the foundation of a blessed life. That's not a side issue - it seems like the foundation of your priority for tranquility. Everything else in your position rests on it. It seems to me that since Epicurus says that he would not know what good is without a list of what is essentially additive pleasures, additive pleasures - normal sensory pleasures including joy and delight - are a very clear foundation for a "blessed life" or "eudaemonia" or "happiness" or whatever other word we want to use to describe the real goal that normal people are looking to hear about.

Thank you Max for all the detailed responses!

As to Emily Austin, here's footnote 8 from Chapter 4 of Living For Pleasure

Quote from Pacatus

You meant "not supernatural," yes?

Thank you! My typing is terrible

I have a feeling that some are going to say that you might be taking a more "mercenary" or "economic man" approach than is warranted by the big picture of nature. Or that your post undervalues the pleasure that your artist friends have helped inject into these relationships - but which may in fact exist regardless of their efforts.

But i'd like to see what others say before I comment further.

Also, I don't see any issues with the fact that "friendship" should not be given an absolute definition. This is just the same as "justice,"" which Epicurus holds to be contextual and ultimately rooted in the pleasures and pains of the people involved.

In the Epicurean universe all these things are relative to circumstance - to time, place, people, things ... and it makes no more sense to try to state an absolute definition of "friend" than of "justice" or "courage" or any other virtue. Given that there are no ideal forms, supernatural gods, or forces of fate, it couldn't be any other way. Like everything else in ethics our evaluations of it are going to derive from the specific pleasures and pains of the people involved.

I just learned about this via Google. I will see what else I can find out. Apparently there was something in late June that I wasn't aware of at all -

Dr. Yapijakis to Celebrate America's 250th Anniversary with Epicurean Philosophy Presentation - The National Herald

NEW YORK – As 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, the Epicurean philosophy that influenced and inspired founding…

www.thenationalherald.com

Clicking the registration link gives this:

Second Session: " I too am an Epicurean " Thomas Jefferson - The pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence and Epicurean Philosophy

Date & Time

Jul 25, 2026 11:00 AM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Description

Thomas Jefferson and the Art of Happiness in Epicurean Philosophy You are cordially invited to celebrate the 250 th anniversary of American Independence in a two- session online event on Saturday, June 27 th , 2026 and Saturday, July 25 th , 2026. We commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the Epicurean Philosophy that inspired and influenced Thomas Jefferson. His enduring legacy honors the history and fundamental rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness that shaped this nation since 1776. Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos and Christos Yapijakis – Co-Founders of the “Society of Epicurus” – Garden of Athens - will present to us the enormous influence of the ancient Greek civilization and Epicurean philosophy on Thomas Jefferson - one of the Founders of the United States of America, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and third President of the United States of America. Celebrate the 250th Anniversary of American Independence with HAWC in this first session online program on Epicurean Philosophy and its influence on Thomas Jefferson, the Author of the Declaration of Independence, with two outstanding speakers, Mr. Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, and Dr. Christos Yapijakis - Co-Founders of the " Society of Epicuros" - Kepos of Athens. Celebrate the 250th Anniversary of American Independence in this second session online program on Epicurean Philosophy and its influence on Thomas Jefferson, the Author of the Declaration of Independence, with two outstanding speakers, Mr. Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, and Dr. Christos Yapijakis - Co-Founders of the " Society of Epicuros" - Kepos of Athens. The Second session topic is: The pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence and Epicurean Philosophy " Second session: Saturday, July 25th, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Central Time ( 6:00 p.m. Greek Time ) " I too am an Epicurean by Christos Yapijakis

Quote from Don

I'd be careful with that phrasing. Empty desires are still "desirable." By pleasure he meant all that is pleasurable (yes, maybe that's a tautology), all that gives pleasure and not pain.

We're packing a lot into this conversaton already so I'll see about addressing that (whether empty desires are still pleasurable, even though they bring more pain in the end than pleasure) elsewhere rather than start a new line of citations, but your point is well taken. Every time we stray from focusing on "pleasure" there are new explanations required, and that is one of the major themes of this whole conversation.

EDIT: I didn't see Joshua's post before posting this.

The question is an excellent one and I am still thinking about what to write further.

As we see in other discussions that focus on translations, there is considerable peril in looking solely to dictionaries and taking definitions out of context. Especially in the case of Epicurus, he uses words in non-standard ways when he believes that the popular opinion of it is inaccurate (example - "gods"). So you have to really be aware of the sweep of the remaining texts to make sure you don't take something out of context that contradicts the whole.

I would think the best way to proceed would be to first look at what we know of the actual lives of Epicureans and how they lived in the ancient world. And even after we do that, clearly there are lots of shades of intensity of friendship so that those so that those at one of the spectrum are hardly recognizable as being in the same category as the other end.

That's what you are illustrating in this question:

Quote from Noah Calderon

Are there bounds to the concept of friendship in the sense thought of by Epicurus (the characteristics of it and the specific benefits it provides) that rule out other forms of kinship with human beings, kinds that do not even necessarily require knowing the other person?

Surely the answer to that is "yes there are bounds" at least in the sense that there are differences in the way we deal with them. It was the Stoics that asserted that there is a divine order of things whereby all humans are bound together in divinely-ordered ways. Whatever else we might say about it, the Epicurean view seems to have been much more practical than that, and would turn on the specific people, places, times, and cirumstances, just as does "justice" (as explained in the PDs).

Quote from Don

. For my understanding of the philosophy, a primary purpose of a tranquil mind, free from anxiety and fear and worry, is to more fully experience every other choiceworthy pleasure and to make prudent decisions on what those are

Agreed!

Quote from Kalosyni

By contrast, ataraxia is a highly active, unshakeable state of mental resilience.

I agree with your contention, but I also think this is exactly what is in dispute. Neither of these terms have readily-understandable meanings in English beyond "calmness" at best.

The major purpose of EpicureanFriends is to make Epicurean philosophy understandable and useful for living people today. Epicurus definitely sometimes uses words differently. We have to explain that when Epicurus was refering to gods he was not referring to something supernatural. We have to explain that when Epicurus referred to pleasure he meant all that is desirable, not just stimulation. Those are explanations which are not particularly difficult and readily understandable. If someone wants to go on a campaign to assert that "tranqullity or ataraxia implies a full complete active life full of ordinary pleasures experienced calmly" then that in my mind is a much harder lift. it might be doable, but it's far beyond the differentiation of meaning that Epicurus gave to gods or pleasure. And the best evidence of that is that most academicians make no effort in that regard. They simply cite ataraxia or tranquility without further explanation as if it is self-evident that we are talking Buddhism or Stoicism.

Quote from Kalosyni

Active Engagement: To the ancient Greeks, ataraxia wasn't about completely removing oneself from the world (which tranquility implies) . It was about actively managing and overcoming unfounded anxieties and destructive passions so you can live a flourishing life, often referred to as eudaimonia.

I would love for that definition of ataraxia to be true, but I am unaware of any authoritative source that would make that statement easy to argue and explain persuasively. Reference to "flourishing" and the like is, as we've discussed, largely a weasel word way of discussing it. In contrast, pleasure is something we feel without need for outside or academic explanation. Even Epicurus' extension of pleasure to "all that is desirable" (pleasure is the absence of pain) is readily understandable if we stop forcing other contradictory philosophies into the mix and simply look to sensations, pleasure and pain, and anticipations for direct evidence of what is desirable.

Thanks for the translation comment Don. The PD, on any translation, says that of all the things wisdom prepares or provides toward a blessed life, friendship is by far the greatest. Not a good and useful means among equally-good means — the single greatest one.

Friendship is, by Maxs's account, additive in exactly the way ice cream and a fine view of the sky are additive. More trust, more years, more depth is always better, other things being equal. If additive goods are structurally barred from contributing to a "perfect" or "complete" life, and only katastematic pleasure can clear that bar, I don't see why wisdom would single out an additive good as its single greatest tool for reaching blessedness. Does "additive" really disqualify a good from being central to the blessed life, or doesn't it?

Here are several specific questions which as I see it call for addressing in order to see the implications of what Max is advocating:

1. Where is the textual basis for "some goods don't contribute to blessedness"? Is there a passage where Epicurus says a specific pleasure fails to count toward the blessed life merely because it is gradable/additive?
2. As Don has asked, why does the Letter to Menoeceus 128 name "health of the body AND tranquility of the mind" jointly as the goal, if tranquility alone confers blessedness?
3. Does the "additive, therefore excluded from blessedness" rule apply to friendship? PD27 says friendship is the greatest of "all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life." Friendship is not katastematic — more friends, deeper friendship, would seem "additive" by Max's own logic. So: does friendship confer blessedness (per PD27) or not (per Max's exclusion rule)? If friendship only confers blessedness instrumentally, by producing tranquility, why does PD27 say "produces the blessedness," not "protects tranquility"?
4. Would a tranquil person with no friends, no joys, no positive pleasures — just an undisturbed, empty mind — count as having achieved the blessed life in full?
5. What would Max tell someone to do differently if someone were to accept Max's contention and prioritize tranquility over pleasure? In a concrete choice between two options, would "refer each of your actions to the goal of nature" (which Max alleges to be tranquility) ever recommend something different from "weigh total pleasure against total pain under a simple and straightforward ordinary calculation"?

Quote from wbernys

Epicurus responds that Pleasure can be perfect (in removing all pain, often thought the neutral state) and afterwards admits only variation. Just as the Stoic sage may vary in different qualities (rich/poor, young/old, Greek/Non-Greek), but not be more wise, pleasure varies in state to state (Joy/Tranquility), but not be more perfect.

I agree withj wbernys here and this is why I would say that once you focus on the logic implications of the foundattional premise that there are only two feelings, it makes perfect sense that the best state is going to be one of pure pleasure accompanied by no pain. Such a goal serves as a target to emulate and aspire to, just as the Epicurean theory of gods provides that target of what the best life would be -- which is much as is stated by Torquatus in the line we quote often:

Quote

[40] XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance.

[41] When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

Which answers the question:

... there being no mystery to setting out total absence of pain / perfect pleasure as the theoretical goal, as that conclusion is clearly and logically compelled by the two feelings doctrine, in the same way that the observation that everything in the universe is ultimately composed of bodies and space rules out the presence of supernatural gods.

The difficulty is not that this two-feelings doctrine is unclear. Cicero allows Torquatus to spell it out plainly, Diogenes of Laertius cites it clearly, it is embedded into the fabric of much core Epicurean doctrine. Every ancient student of Epicurus would be expected to know it. The difficulty is that since the suppression of the school, and as part of that project, anti-Epicureans have been trying to make Epicurus into a Stoic and reconcile him with mainstream Greek philosophy by placing an attitude / single feeling (tranquility) as the ultimate goal of life. This deprecates pleasure into a tool which is to be discarded as soon the unthreatening goal of absence of pain is achieved.

If one focuses on the very clear big picture it is obvious that the theoretical best life is one composed solely of pleasures with no presence of pain. Epicurus knew that we as mortals can't reach that state, just as he could not cure his kidney disease, but the essential thing for a philosophy to do is to set forth the goal - the target to which we aspire. "Pleasure" - complete and unadulterated, but not specific in kind, as we are individuals - is the goal. This perspective answers those who like Plato in Philebus or Seneca assert that those who hold to "additive theories of pleasure" are being illogical. It's no harder for an Epicurean to deal with the difficulties of reaching pure pleasure than it is for a Stoic or Platonist to deal with he difficulties of reaching pure virtue. And in fact it's a whole lot easier, because pleasure actually exists, and Platonic ideals and Supernatural gods don't.