One more (or perhaps a couple) of clips from the Jowett commentary that seem particularly important:
The following is not what Plato said in Philebus, but commentary from the writer (Jowett himself?) which seems pretty sound:
Now this is interesting too:
doesn't even seem relevant to me!
Plato would probably sniff and say that's because you're not "golden'" 
Where's the honey on the rim of this cup of wormwood?
That one might be easy: the honey is in the pleasure you will take in looking down at the poor wandering souls who are confused and listless, and knowing (once you see through Plato) that you have the medicine that will help them. Plus of course you will have the pleasure of actually helping them.
More precisely, I will argue (but am not yet articulate enough to be convincing) that this knowledge of seeing through Plato will allow you to treat a particularly important subset of the people who are confused and listless: those who have read Epicurus but think they should pursue "tranquility" rather than "pleasure."
And of course my argument there is that once you see a very practical and important reason for Epicurus to have been concerned about arguing over whether "pleasure has a limit," you'll begin to entertain that the reason PD3, and portions of the Letter to Menoeceus, are written the way they are is to refute Plato, not to suggest that tranquility is something separate and higher than pleasure, as so many people (trying to apply their Buddhism and Stoicism) want to interpret it.
At that point I think you'll begin to entertain that:
(1) PD1 is mainly an antidote to the contention that there are supernatural gods;
(2) PD2 is mainly an antidote to the contention that there is life after death; and then in parallel
(3) PD3 and PD4 are mainly antidotes to Platonic arguments that pleasure cannot be the goal of life.
Having 'pleasure is the goal of life" somewhere near the top of the principal doctrines is pretty important to making sense of them. To me, the realization that these are refutations of Plato makes them much easier to understand and less likely to be twisted into some kind of "absence of pain as an end in itself" rabbit hole. And I am not happy to admit the "to me" part. I think that this seems signifcant "to me" and to others who are probably like me, is that we have previously been impressed with the Platonic/Stoic position that "logic" must rule, and we are looking for a "logical" solution to the trap that Plato has set with his arguments. My only consolation is that i think that a lot of Epicurus' students were that way too, which is the best explanation for why he wrote his material the way he did. Approaching the dispute the way he did, Epicurus is able to slap the "logic-seekers" in the face with their own logic. "Pleasure DOES have a limit, you dolts! Why did you and Protarchus and Philebus' boys ever admit to Plato that it didn't!"
Note: i am personally still unclear where Philebus himself ended up, and that's why I reference "Philebus' boys":
I may have the time to try a Zoom meeting Tuesday night if anyone is interested. We have not yet made any decisions on a weekly format but we can discuss that as the main agenda among whoever is available.
One thing we have not finalized is how "open' to make this. For now, let's do this on the basis of "if you are interested, message Cassius and he will check with those who are established regulars and coordinate introductions" basis.
In other words, if you would like to participate but have not previously joined a live meeting, please message me and we will follow our existing procedure of letting those who are regular attenders decide how fast to expand the circle.
For planning purposes let's pick 8:30 PM Eastern Time (USA) but if someone requests an adjustment we can consider that.
Godfrey I am going to tag you here due to your earlier comment about reading about "kinds of pleasure" in Gosling & Taylor. If (or anyone else) happens to get a chance to look at Philebus and develops any insight into the flow of Plato's argument, please let me know.
I am confident that Jowett's outline summary is correct. I think his point 4 is where we find the "pleasure has no limit so that means it can't be THE good" which is probably of prime importance in discussing Epicurus' 'limit of pleasure" argument. But Plato goes on in points 5 through the end to make arguments about mixed and unmixed and pure / impure, and their relation to wisdom, which probably also have responses in epicurus, but we have yet to drag those out into the open. PD18 and PD19 and maybe others may relate to this, and this might be key to Epicurus' argument that the infinite life can contain no more pleasure than our own, which is finite. If so, that too would be a hugely important point to understand better - instead of skipping over it as we often do now.
There is LOTS more to get out of Philebus which will help us with Epicurus.
This is the most clear outline of the argument in Philebus that I have found. it is from the introduction to the dialogue in the Jowett edition. It is not totally helpful and doesn't answer a lot of questions but it does list the topics being discussed, and that in itself is a great help:
Locations to Important points in text - Fowler:
Kinds of Pleasure: "For I think Socrates is asking us whether there are or are not kinds of pleasure, how many kinds there are, what their nature is, and the same of wisdom." https://archive.org/details/b2900049x_0008/page/229/mode/1up
Is the Nature of the good perfect or imperfect, sufficient or insufficient? soc. Is the nature of the good necessarily perfect or imperfect ? pro. The most perfect of all things, surely, Socrates. soc. Well, and is the good sufficient ?
pro. Of course ; so that it surpasses all other things in sufficiency. https://archive.org/details/b2900049x_0008/page/233/mode/1up
The good cannot have need of anything else. soc. Let there be no wisdom in the life of pleasure and no pleasure in the life of wisdom. For if either of them is the good, it cannot have need of anything else, and if either be found to need anything, we can no longer regard it as our true good. https://archive.org/details/b2900049x_0008/page/235/mode/1up
The Limits Argument:
Consider the hotter and the colder, is there any limit in them? soc. Consider then. What I ask you to consider is difficult and debatable ; but consider it all the same. In the first place, take hotter and colder and see whether you can conceive any limit of them, or whether the more and less which dwell in their very nature do not, so long as they continue to dwell therein, preclude the possibility of any end ; for if there were any end of them, the more and less would themselves be ended. https://archive.org/details/b2900049x_0008/page/245/mode/1up
Socrates suggests that a goddess higher than pleasure established law and order, which has a limit, to restrain pleasure, which does not have a limit:. soc. There are countless other things which I pass over, such as health, beauty, and strength of the body and the many glorious beauties of the soul. For this goddess , 1 my fair Philebus, beholding the violence and universal wickedness which prevailed, since there was no limit of pleasures or of indulgence in them, established law and order, which contain a limit. You say she did harm ; I say, on the contrary, she brought salvation. https://archive.org/details/b2900049x_0008/page/253/mode/1up
Have pleasure and pain a limit? (27e) Soc. Have pleasure and pain a limit, or are they among the things which admit of more and less phi. Yes, they are among those which admit of the more, Socrates ; for pleasure would not be absolute good if it were not infinite in number and degree. soc. Nor would pain, Philebus, be absolute evil ; so it is not the infinite which supplies any element of good in pleasure ; we must look for something else. Well, I grant you that pleasure and pain are in the class of the infinite ; but to which of the aforesaid classes, Protarchus and Philebus, can we now without irreverence assign wisdom, knowledge, and mind ? I think we must find the right answer to this question, for our danger is great if we fail. https://archive.org/details/b2900049x_0008/page/259/mode/1up Perseus Link
I will come back here and post a link to where Philebus may be found on the tufts.perseus site, but for now I want to link to what might be the best and most definitive free public domain edition: that by Jowett. This edition has extensive introduction and notes which I have not read, but in linking to pages and line numbers this might be the best way to link to sections of the text on the internet.
Let me be clear: Philebus is very difficult to follow, and I don't claim to have figured it out. It seems clear that there are points which are directly related to Epicurus, such as a very clear question about whether pleasure and pain have a limit. Socrates is very clear that he thinks pleasure does not have a limit, and it seems clear that Socrates things that Pleasure is disqualified from being "The good' for that reason, but Socrates combines this argument with other complicated arguments that seem to hinge on the nature of numbers, and i really don't understand where he is ultimately going with those: something to the effect that wisdom is the most important thing to have, apparently.
Here is the main archive.org page for Jowett : https://archive.org/details/b24750189_0004 and for Fowler: https://archive.org/details/b2900049x_0008 and the main Peresus page: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…3Atext%3DPhileb.
The start of the section on Philebus in the Jowett edition (extensive introduction and commentary): https://archive.org/details/b24750189_0004/page/518/mode/2up
The start of the dialog itself: https://archive.org/details/b24750189_0004/page/574/mode/2up
Start of the "Limit" discussion - page 593 of the Jowett text: https://archive.org/details/b24750189_0004/page/593/mode/1up This is according to Perseus section 27e.
I intend to do more work on the "limit of pleasure" argument that is found here, and this is the place where I plan to provide page and line number links. (To be clear, I have now changed my mind and will link mostly to the Fowler pages, since that is what Perseus uses and probably therefore is easier to search. We can use Jowett as needed for comparison, because Philebus is a very complicated argument.)
"Good luck" with your circumstances Alex. I am sure most of deal with varying degrees of serious problems and yes reading Epicurus is a refuge from the storms and gives hope and grounding to weather them.
Welcome JMK1100 !
This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
Welcome to the forum!
Well he just started a thread saying that Epicurus' birthday is MONDAY, right, so that settles it for us doesn't it? Maybe we should lock the thread and declare January 10 the final answer? 
Thank you for those notes Joshua!!! For all that work the "trophy" icon is just not enough.
Probably there is some discussion in Plato and/or Aristotle relevant to this but if so I am not aware of it. This does not seem to me to be the same as the "purity" issue which to me is related to the "limit" issue.
I sense that Godfrey's suggestion that the bottom line is the pleasures are similar (all are feelings) but cannot be ranked absolutely (as there is no objective standard) but there likely was some existing contention that he was bouncing off of by constructing the discussion in this way.
Don so what do you conclude to be the closest modern calendar equivalent?
I am happy to say that we spent the *entirety* of today's show addressing @smoothiekiwi 's questions on arrogance and cultism, and I think we'll conclude eventually that this was one of our better episodes. I'll get it published asap but it's a long one so will be a couple of days.
This event makes an obvious point: we really ought to look over the list of FAQs, clean them up, and consider devoting a podcast to going through each one.
Martin is suggesting that we just try to develop the closest approximation to our current calendar and forget the moon issue.
Is that possible?
he must have been familiar with the Platonic/Aristotlean exercise of ranking pleasures.
Godfrey of course you would expect that we would ask for a reference for those exercises!
Here is a post from Holly at Facebook earlier this week. It is so frustrating that this is so hard to do:
"I have been following this FB group, and they calculate today as being 5 Gamelion, so the 7th would be Sunday."
https://www.facebook.com/PrayerstotheGodsofHellas
- it was probably his decision and his individual valuation of pain/pleasure)
Right. I think that's the answer right there.
, because the pleasure you gain from teaching doesn't justify the pain of having fear to be wounded and hated
And there's the problem that caused the question - likely some pains so clearly outweigh the pleasures involved that we can be confident in predicting what most everyone would choose, but we generally need to go slow in making that judgement for other people because circumstances can be very complex or just unknown to us, and how people calculate their pleasures and pains varies widely.
Reasonable. But I would suggest that if this continues to be a concern for you after you read further that you bring it up again later so we can be sure to discuss the subtlties of what you still consider later on to be "cultism." I think those concerns are likely to go away on their own but if they don't by all means let's discuss them further.
Is this a convoluted way of saying that pleasures differ from one another, but that you can't rank them?
That is a very tempting thought Godfrey that deserves some close consideration.
I can't help but think that this question of "ranking pleasures" must have occurred to Epicurus too, and thus would have found its way into the principal Doctrines.
So:
1. Is Godfrey's suggestion correct?
2. What is accomplished by stating this in so convoluted a form? Because I would assert Epicurus must have had a reason for everything he did, especially in writing the Principal Doctrines the way they are.
