For this discussion, I'm offering two options of prompts to choose from.  

1) The Epicureans and Stoics have some obvious differences in their fundamental principles, perhaps best illustrated by the Epicurean notion that the good to be pursued is Pleasure, while the Stoics are fairly clear that bodily pleasure is something outside of our power, and therefore something we should be indifferent toward.  Yet, despite this seemingly crucial difference, the practical applications of Epicurean and Stoic ethics end up looking strikingly similar.  Is there any practical difference between these two theoretical frameworks at all?  Does it matter whether one takes an Epicurean or a Stoic approach to life provided that the actions prescribed are the same?  

2) Both the Epicureans and Stoics tell us that death is nothing to fear.  We saw something similar in Plato's Phaedo, where Socrates suggests that death might even be desirable for the philosopher.  While these sorts of claims are clearly useful in certain situations where we need to be courageous in the face of death, it seems as if many would tend to think that this attitude towards death is too indifferent, and that some inclination to avoid death is both natural and rational.  Can either the Epicureans or Stoics provide an account of what our attitude towards death ought to be that can explain why we should engage in very basic acts of self-preservation (like not stepping into busy traffic, or seeking out medical treatment when we're sick)?  If so, how would they explain the difference between cases where we ought to avoid death and and ones where we ought to accept and embrace it?

Although the Epicureans believed that “pleasure is the greatest good”, they were certainly not hedonists in any modern sense of the word. Their “pleasure” was to be obtained by living modestly, devoting a life to the sciences and philosophy, and limiting one's desires. Hardly a life of debauchery... or “partying like it's BC 299.” The founder of the movement, Epicurus, advised: "Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not."

The Stoics resolved to be as unattached as possible to pleasure, neither seeking it nor dwelling on it- transcending it seems a good description. They believed that self-discipline was essential and that the key to a good life was behaving ethically toward nature in general and one's fellow man in particular. Marcus Aurelius: "Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking."

The two schools seem analogous to dominations of a common religion, such as Lutherans and Methodists. Same general outlook on proper behavior and thought; just a different style and framework for getting there. But unlike Christianity, a "god" is not a major component, nor a fear of punishment after death. Very pragmatic, striving to make the most of the one life that is sure- all in all a very commendable approach.

It's a rarer kind of pleasure that the philosopher seeks. It's the satisfaction (subtle but important word difference) of being in control of one's thoughts and actions, rather than abandoning them in “wine, women, and song” or  more modernly “sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.” The pleasures of the body are momentary. Our appetites might be sated temporarily but will keep coming back, and eventually with diminishing returns. Both the Epicureans and the Stoics were seeking contentment, a more subtle type of pleasure but one with lasting quality. True pleasure is not about the trappings of materialism or popularity. It's the pursuit of your own answers about life, and the proper courses of action for one as an individual, rather than following the herd.