Pursuing pleasure has become such an oversaturated idea, the point of being subjected to the law of diminishing returns so vastly, that its core purpose has been nearly lost of any complete understanding to the modern mind.
No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.—Epicurus
I don't see any reason to suppress pleasure as something in and of itself, as to me it seems unnatural; the clear observation from our lives early on is we react to our environment in either pain or pleasure just like how things may be virtuous/evil and sickly/healthy.
Watching a dog chew down on a bone endlessly it appears as if they don't have understanding of limits, but aren't humans as higher level animals suppose be in control of their desires? The widespread weakness of spirits among the general population shown by collective evils notably warfare, indicates the failure of humanity for not getting a grip on pleasure. So perhaps the religious and other moralists being aware of this phenomenon made it a priority to eliminate desires that lead to excess or rather the imposter term hedonism.
What is never asked is the important foundational idea of limits: what pleasures are natural versus unnatural and what are necessary versus unnecessary pleasures?
A whole lot of religion and factitious ideologies refuses to look at things as they are. These types of philosophies are established through an imagined realm of reality where truth is based on faith; it leads to a life of error, neglecting nature and a disregard for the role of pleasure.
Likewise, for the ascetic, he only goes for what is deemed necessary for survival, consciously allowing some pain or hardship as inevitable without trying to seek further pleasures that might remove the pain. Pain as the cost to create greater pleasures is the only type pain which should be tolerated.
For the great majority the art of seeking your own profit has amounted to only specific economic gains; and while these are important, its neglected other crucial aspects of a humane life where sweeter and simpler pleasures are to be found. Economic gains can and does bring tremendous advantages facilitating a certain type of lifestyle. What's concerning is whether or not this lopsided outlook is beneficial for the individual, and ultimately for a wholesome civilization.
Nock coined the term economism to describe this sole philosophy followed by western society, which meant just caring about the "production, acquisition and distribution of wealth". This vain approach toward unnatural and unnecessary pleasures is similar to overfilling a cup, not recognizing the limits of nature causing it to reach a point where it's unstable and overflows.
If the goal is what the Greeks referred to as eudaimonia—the humane life, flourishing, and tranquility, pleasure must be maximized while minimizing pain. Some things like food, water and shelter are natural and necessary pleasures. These are usually easy to acquire and does not take much to satisfy.
There are other things which might be natural yet not necessary, including social relations, sex, or select comforts. What should be avoided are unnatural pleasures including fame, wealth, and power. Such unnatural desires have no limits so you eventually become an easy prey to the disorder of insatiability.
Nevertheless, the key is finding the right balance of moderation between the necessary and unnecessary natural pleasures; and this will be up to your personal considerations as well as tastes. Pleasure is not a subject to be taken lightly or brushed off as irrelevant inquiry. We are all naturally motivated by self-interest so to come to terms with this understanding will ensure all of us the abundant joy we seek.
