On the Stoic Opposition that Pleasure is what Humans Seek

I have been thinking a lot about the last slide that we had in class on Wednesday. Especially the Stoic point that infants did not seek what was pleasurable in foods when they were young, meaning that pleasure is not what we seek but rather we seek what keeps us alive. Though this makes sense, I do not believe that it is true. I remember watching an episode of "I Shouldn't be Alive," which is a show about people who have survived dangerous situations, and in this episode a man was adrift at sea on a raft. He was able to catch fish, but oddly he found himself not craving the meat of the fish but the fish eyes. This is because fish eyes have a very high fat content which he needed to survive. This suggests that our bodies in some cases will change what we find pleasurable in order to keep us alive. If this same concept is applied to the infant example provided by the Stoics it does not seem as damaging to the Epicurean point. Rather it might suggest that both the Stoics and Epicureans were partially right, but failed to grasp the whole concept.