Socrates is more of the "what's good for the soul=a good life"
Epictetus/Epicurus is more along the lines of "Avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure to get relief from pain=a good life".
that is rather caricatural and ill-nuanced
'socratic' eudaimonia (hello plato): His idea is to bring people to the 'right insight'. once this is attained, the correct praxis will follow by itself through itself. the nature of the human animal is reasonable, and thus through reason will he know how he must guide his actions in order to be 'aligned with himself/his nature'. it is this natural flowing alignment that is 'the good life' in virtue ethics. these virues are derived from rationally thinking the good. In order to reach this natural state however, a coming to knowledge is required, understanding the reason behind the virtues. How? by seeing where one falls short of the ideal, and asking why. thus coming to understand ones mistakes. though this is done by reason, pain is the tell tale sign of where to look. so pain should be viewed as an indication of one's 'growth edges', opportunities to further ones understanding, katharsis.
Epicurian ethics (hello democritus): here we start from the bottom up; ie. the senses and sensual experience, instead of the idea of 'the good'. His supreme end however is also an eudaimonia (happiness correlates with pleasure and morals). the difference with Platonic thought is the absence of a 'general good' (of the polis), epicurean thought does not go beyond the individual. every livin thing naturally strives for pleasure and attempts to avoid pain. so the value of every human life-expression should be measured by its pleasure. the pleasure of the flesh is valued less then pleasure of the mind (though it originates from the senses), for the latter spreads over past and future (memory and anticipation). epicurus states that the highest pleasure is reached in a state of rest. desires must be controlled, for they bring a state of tension/anxiousness. thus the wise man must not simply pursue pleasure and avoid pain. by means of his reason he must weigh his his options. some of his desires may cause more pain in the long run then the pleasure attained at first. sometimes undergoing pain can bring about greater pleasure in the end. thus when confronted with pain, it is not avoided, it is confronted in the question why. should it be avoided?
(non traditional interpretation: ) Since epicurianism also strives for a 'natural state of rest', which is (naturally) absent of pain, one can very well suppose that all pain ultimately has a good reason for undergoing it, and thus serves to lead one to this state. understanding pain means undergoing the pain. once one truly
knows the quantity and quality of the pain; the desire it connects with can be deemed as invaluable, thus dissolved)
thus you see that both are actually not that diferent as a first glance might suppose. in my view, socratic is 'top-down', while epicurean is bottom-up. in both views reasonable insight in ones desires is the key. the difference lies in the measure of this reason. the first accounts for itself through the ideals flowing from the idea of the good, while the other takes individual pleasure as its starting point. but both are
eudaimonistic: the good and pleasure are intimately intertwined. ethics are in service of the good life, which is a pleasurable life. though the first one goes along the virtue-route, thus taking precedence over the individual (universality). in terms of reaching their end goal, i'd say virtue ethics may be (too) 'rigid' (demanding the inhuman), while the epicurean calculus may be too 'supple' (prone to 'erroneous calculation': in a weak moment, or simply due to ignorance).
)
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
