Epicureanism or Stoicism

If I had to choice between being an Epicurean or a stoic, I think I would choose stoicism. Epicureanism revolves purely around pleasure, but people can achieve pleasure by doing bad things. “Bad things” of course is a very subjunctive way of putting it, but in short, it is being immoral and unethical. Sometimes being bad can feel good, or pleasurable, but how long would that kind of pleasure last? Stoicism revolves more around virtue rather than just avoiding stress in order to obtain pleasure.

The lives of Stoics revolve more so around virtue in my opinion because having pleasure by just relieving yourself of all the stresses of life takes away the point of living. The Epicureans don’t get emotionally attached to anyone because if something goes wrong it would cause them stress. At the same time, secluding yourself emotionally cannot be good for you. To be a closed book and not give people a chance in order to keep your pleasurable lifestyle isn’t a good life in my opinion.

Temporary pleasure can only last so long and eventually in their lifetimes, the Epicureans will figure that out and will regret living for the future instead of living for the moment. What is the point of living if you can’t feel alive? I’m saying that stoicism is the answer to true happiness because indifference isn’t my lifestyle either which is key in being a stoic. Epicureanism just seems to be pointless because pleasure isn’t going to be possible to have all the time, so I would just rather deal with life’s stresses just like everyone else rather than putting it aside to save myself temporarily. I think stoicism is a much better alternative than Epicureanism in order to truly lead a happy life.