However, he contradicts with Aristotle by determining exuberance with pleasure. Epicurus explains this with two reasons. The major reason is that pleasure is the only affair of amusement, and practically, value for its intrinsic benefit. Moreover, it resembles Epicurus' ethical hedonism, which is significantly planted upon his intellectual hedonism. Epicurus explains it further by claiming that everything we do, is eventually for the sake of advancing to the state of pleasure for ourselves. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned fact can be apparently justified with the thorough observation of the behavior of infants, who, characteristically adheres pleasure and avoids pain. As of Epicurus, this is true in case of adults as well, but the priorities and beliefs of adults are much more sophisticated in relevancy of the matter that what will bring them pleasure. Hence, when it comes to the adults, it is more difficult to see that this is true. Epicurus states that not all pleasures are exquisite to opt for or not all pains can be prevented, although all pleasures are considered good and all pains are acknowledged as evil. Alternatively, one should determine what lies in one's deep-rooted presumption in terms of pleasure. Moreover, what will compel pleasure in the short-term if doing so will conclusively influence an advance state pleasure, which will last long. (Mitsis Phillip 1988)1
The no subject of harm argument - Epicurus mentions that if death is the phenomenon with its outcome as eradication, then it is nothing to us. Epicurus' main argument for why death is not bad is contained in the Letter to Menoeceus. In that letter, Epicurus summarizes his ethical doctrines and he depicts death as no subject of harm argument. Epicurus questions that if death is bad, for whom would it be bad. Neither for the living things, since they are not dead, and nor for the dead, as they do not exist. The expression of is argument as follows: - If At All, death is annihilation, then the living things are not yet annihilated, as they are alive. Hence, we can conclude that death does not influence the living things. So, death cannot be considered as bad for the living things. Subsequently for something to be bad for someone, that person should be in existence, at least. However, as mentioned earlier the dead do not exist. Therefore, death cannot be considered bad for the dead. Nevertheless, the conclusion can be computed that death is bad neither for the living nor for the dead. Epicurus supports the no subject of harm argument of his by asserting that if death does not cause pain to somebody when he or she is dead, then it is mere foolishness to allow the fear of it to cause you pain now.
The symmetry argument -Another Epicurean argument against the fear of death is symmetry argument, which is recorded by the Epicurean poet Lucretius. He claims that anybody who fears death should think of the time before he or she was born. The past immensity of pre-natal non-existence can be conceived as the subsequent infinity of post-mortem non-existence. However, nature has set up a mirror so that a person can think over his or her future non-existence. Nobody considers eternity of non-existence before his or her birth as a terrible thing. Therefore, should