Some commentators say: "Epicurus philosophy is clearly influenced by Eastern hedonism, although his intention is not to make people indulge in vocal music, but from his philosophical theory, Epicurus is indeed concerned with personal happiness, there is an individualistic tendency." (Gu Fengqiang and Li Yanping: The Exploration of the Ethicalization of Late Greek Philosophy, Journal of Southwest Agricultural University, No. 1, 2006)
There are also commentaries on the contrary, with some commentators arguing: "Epicurus practiced asceticism in sexuality. (Ding Zhiqiong: "Happiness is Happiness" and "Virtue is Happiness"—— A Comparison of the Concept of Happiness between the Epicurean School and the Stoic School, Journal of Anhui University, Zheshe Edition, No. 3, 2009)
According to a similar view, Epicurus "advocates the maximum suppression and restraint of inner passions by man with his own reason." (Tian Fanglin: Re-examining epicurus's dialectical ethical thought, Journal of Yanbian University, Social Science Edition, No. 2, 2008)
I believe that both views are incorrect.
First of all, we do not see any ideas advocating pleasure in Epicurus's relevant discourses, on the contrary, advocating the restrained satisfaction of desires and not pursuing enjoyment.
"When we say that happiness is the end," he said, we are not talking about the happiness of those who spend it excessively or indulge in sensual pleasures. That's what those who are ignorant, opposed, or maliciously distorted about our views think so. We are talking about the absence of pain in the body and the absence of trouble in the soul. Happiness is not an endless feast or a carnival, nor is it the enjoyment of beauty, nor is it the hedonistic life brought about by big fish and meat or delicious food, but the use of sober rational research to discover all the causes of choice and avoidance, driving out the ideas that lead to the greatest fear of the soul. (Epicurus and Lucretius: Nature and Pleasure: The Philosophy of Epicurus, China Social Science Press, 2004, p. 33; page numbers only) I think Epicurus has made it very clear here.
Second, Epicurus did not advocate asceticism. He believed that the condition of physical suffering caused by scarcity must be eliminated and that the basic physiological needs of the human person must be met. To this end, he said: "If the wise man is poor, he will also earn money, but only through his wisdom." (p.53) The purpose of earning money is to satisfy those natural and necessary desires.
He advocated that a person should live a simple life, and at the same time said: "There is also a degree of simple life." The mistakes made by those who do not pay attention to this degree are as great as the mistakes made by those who fall into a life of luxury. ”（p.49）
In his view, the evil consequence of excessive frugality and moderation is the inability to satisfy those natural and necessary desires, and like the extravagant and profligate lifestyle, it is impossible to lead a truly happy life. Here his opposition to asceticism is very clear.
Some commentators have pointed out that Epicurus believed that "for man, the more fundamental thing is not reason, but feeling is the criterion for judging good and evil, there is no external supreme good as the ultimate goal, human nature is to pursue happiness, and happiness is the highest innate good." (Zhang Guangsheng and Tian Linlin: Culture, Civilization and Nature: The Political Philosophy of Epicureanism, Dialectics of Nature, No. 10, 2010)
I think this is a great misunderstanding of Epicurus's thought.
First, Epicurus believed that happiness and reason (reason) are inseparable; without reason there is no happiness: "A happy life cannot be separated from a life of reason, goodness, and justice: a life of reason, goodness, and justice is also inseparable from happiness." If one lacks one of them, such as a lack of reason, then although a person still lives a good and righteous life, it is impossible for him to live a happy life. ”（p.38）
Secondly, happiness in the true sense is the absence of trouble in the soul, which is possible only through rational thinking: "No matter how great the possessions, how widespread fame is earned, or what is pursued by those unrestricted desires, there is no way to solve the disorder of the soul, nor can it produce joy in the true sense." ”（p.50）
Although some commentators admit that Epicurus used reason to temper pleasure, they do not approve of his approach: "Epicurus tried to reconcile sensory pleasure with the pleasure of rational moderation and trade-off with a pleasure. ...... In fact, there is no such thing as suffering in the pursuit of the first kind of pleasure, and all that is needed for abstinence is social suffering. Thus, it can be said that Epicurus's reconciliation of these two pleasures was fundamentally unsuccessful. (Mou Chun: The Double Meaning of Happiness: Epicurus's Ethics of Happiness, Jinyang Academic Journal, No. 1, 2008)
Here's a question to be clear: Doesn't the pursuit of sensual pleasure bring pain? For example, if you overeat and eat well, it will damage the stomach and intestines, and it will cost money, which will not cause pain? Precisely because sensual pleasure has a degree problem, and the grasp of the degree depends on human reason to make a choice, Epicurus "reconciles sensory pleasure with the pleasure of rational moderation and trade-off". I didn't see it.
The so-called "abstinence requires only those social sufferings" means that it has nothing to do with the pursuit of sensual pleasures, which I think is not true. For example, the pursuit of a life of extravagance and profligacy, which is sensual pleasure, but it requires a lot of money, and the person is required to fight for money, spend energy for it, damage physical health, cause many troubles, and even destroy relationships with others, which becomes the so-called "social suffering". Therefore, these two kinds of happiness are originally closely and inseparablely linked, so how can we say that "reconciliation is not successful"?
(Author Huang Zhongjing)