Posts by Cassius

Joshua, Kalosyni, and anyone else who is willing to get into the details of this discussion in Philebus, I hope you will weigh in because I think it is hard to overstate the significance of this issue.

"Philebus" is reputed to be one of Plato's most mature and important dialogs. It is his "tour-de-force" against Pleasure as the good. And the tip of the spear of his argument by which he defeats the pro-pleasure side is this very argument -- by convincing the pro-pleasure side that pleasure has no limit (it can always be increased or decreased) he persuades Philebus (the pro-pleasure side) to abandon the argument that pleasure is the highest good.

In Athens in the age of Epicurus it therefore seems to me that Epicurus would have viewed the necessity of defeating this argument as almost as important as defeating the argument in favor of supernatural gods, and the argument in favor of reward or punishment after death. Epicurus was a teacher right in the heart of Athenian logic and philosophy, and this logical argument against pleasure had been enshrined as the gold standard by the most important teacher in Greek philosophy.

I also feel sure there are statements of this argument beyond this one in Philebus, and the examples cited above in Seneca. I just haven't had time to find more at this point.

We need more and better examples to illustrate what is in issue, because it is hard to follow given the shades of meaning of the word "limit."

One way is to go back to reneliza 's pink circle model:

In this diagram, the "limit of pleasure" is the edge of each circle. Each circle can contain only so much color, and no more, and the total quantity - the total magnitude - of "pink / pleasure" is the "area" of the circle contained within its edge.

By our definition of pink as containing ALL shades of pink (just like we define pleasure as containing ALL kinds of pleasure) we state that circles 2, 3, and 4 have all reached the LIMIT OF PINK (Pleasure). We may want to superficially quibble that "all shades of pink are not pink!" but we have DEFINED pink as including all shades, so circles 2, 3, and 4 have all reached their limit because they are completely filled with pink.

Circle 1, alone, has not reached the limit of pleasure, because it contains a lot of "white" space (our stand-in here for pain). Circle 1 cannot reach the "limit of pink" until all the white space is filled in with some shade of pink.

And this is one of the huge points: We don't make circle one reach the limit of pleasure simply by getting rid of all the white!!!! We can't replace the white with black or gold or green or any other random color, and we also can't simply make the white "disappear!"

We have to replace all the white (pain) with pink (pleasure) in order to reach the limit of pink/pleasure!

Welcome DavidN ! Please Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their accounts will be deleted. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourselves further and join one or more of our conversations.

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.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

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!

I agree with what is written above, but I also think there is another section on Philiebus which is more on point with the question of "why" the absence of a limit to pleasure was significant to Plato in relation to pleasure. The same argument is asserted with even greater clarity in Seneca, which I quote below too, but to me the essence of the argument is the logical point that if a thing has no limit, then it an always be made better,. The big point comes down to;: Once you admit something has no limit, then you admit it can be made better, and then by definition since it can be made better what you have isn't "the best" or "the highest" possible. To be the "highest good" something must really be the "best possible," and that means (sort of counterintuitively since we consider the word "limit" to be bad) that the best possible must have a "limit." The logical reasoning (which makes sense when you think about the varuous meanings of the word "limit") is that that which has no limit (no "highest point beyond which you can go no further") cannot be "the best."

As Seneca says it very precisely - "“THE ABILITY TO INCREASE IS PROOF THAT A THING IS IMPERFECT.”" In other words, if something belongs to the class which can be increased or decreased, then the quantify of that thing is not "perfect" --

Plato uses Philebus as a patsy, because Philebus misunderstands the implications of how "perfect" and "admitting of more or less" fit together. By admitting that pleasure has no limit, and can always be increased, he loses the argument to Plato. It's a point that tripped up Philebus, and it continues to trip up a lot of people today because they equate the "limit" as being a negative thing - when it seems clear when viewed logically that this use of "limit" is not bad at all - any more than saying that the fact that Mount Everest has a highest tip takes away from the fact that it is the highest mountain in the world (or whatever mountain it is that holds that honor).

That is why in my view it was important for Epicurus to show that pleasure has a limit. Unless we can show what that limit is (when all pain is gone from our life) then we have no limit we can point to, and thus, by Seneca and Socrates' reasoning, "pleasure" cannot be the highest good.

From Philebus:

SOCRATES: Have pleasure and pain a limit, or do they belong to the class which admits of more and less?

PHILEBUS: They belong to the class which admits of more, Socrates; for pleasure would not be perfectly good if she were not infinite in quantity and degree.

SOCRATES: Nor would pain, Philebus, be perfectly evil. And therefore the infinite cannot be that element which imparts to pleasure some degree of good. But now — admitting, if you like, that pleasure is of the nature of the infinite — in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind? And let us be careful, for I think that the danger will be very serious if we err on this point.

PHILEBUS: You magnify, Socrates, the importance of your favourite god.

SOCRATES: And you, my friend, are also magnifying your favourite goddess; but still I must beg you to answer the question. …

SOCRATES: And whence comes that soul, my dear Protarchus, unless the body of the universe, which contains elements like those in our bodies but in every way fairer, had also a soul? Can there be another source?

PROTARCHUS: Clearly, Socrates, that is the only source.

SOCRATES: Why, yes, Protarchus; for surely we cannot imagine that of the four classes, the finite, the infinite, the composition of the two, and the cause, the fourth, which enters into all things, giving to our bodies souls, and the art of self-management, and of healing disease, and operating in other ways to heal and organize, having too all the attributes of wisdom; — we cannot, I say, imagine that whereas the self-same elements exist, both in the entire heaven and in great provinces of the heaven, only fairer and purer, this last should not also in that higher sphere have designed the noblest and fairest things?

PROTARCHUS: Such a supposition is quite unreasonable.

SOCRATES: Then if this be denied, should we not be wise in adopting the other view and maintaining that there is in the universe a mighty infinite and an adequate limit, of which we have often spoken, as well as a presiding cause of no mean power, which orders and arranges years and seasons and months, and may be justly called wisdom and mind?

PROTARCHUS: Most justly.

The same argument in Seneca:

Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVI: This also is a saying of Epicurus: “If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich.” Nature’s wants are slight; the demands of opinion are boundless. Suppose that the property of many millionaires is heaped up in your possession. Assume that fortune carries you far beyond the limits of a private income, decks you with gold, clothes you in purple, and brings you to such a degree of luxury and wealth that you can bury the earth under your marble floors; that you may not only possess, but tread upon, riches. Add statues, paintings, and whatever any art has devised for the luxury; you will only learn from such things to crave still greater. **Natural desires are limited; but those which spring from false opinion can have no stopping point. The false has no limits. **

Seneca’s Letters – To Lucilius – 66.45: “What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect.

Sorry to have missed you tonightRoot304 but hope you can join us next week.

Quote from Don

Epicurus gets at what her looked like writing to Menoikeus.

Do you think it's safe to presume that letter was written soon after arrival in Athens?

I know people say the style is different and we can presume something from that, but frankly I'm not sure how to interpret that.

I have to say that of the ones I have seen this one is my favorite:

Start at 2:04:

Thread

Bust Of Epicurus Reconstructed - Great Video Shared by Elli!

Thank you for finding this Elli! WOW Epicurus comes out STRONG in this video! Here's Epicurus reconstructed, and then afterwards the full video at about the 2:05 mark. This Epicurus is ready to star in his own movie!

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/1814/



youtube.com/watch?v=lq5JvWUMJE4

Cassius

April 21, 2021 at 9:05 PM

REMINDER: Tonight is our Wednesday Open Invitation Zoom, and we will talk about PD03 and PD04, as well as issues and opportunities in talking about Epicurus in the world today.

And we hope to see you this Wednesday too.

Good to have you Root304!

Welcome @Root304 ! Please Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their accounts will be deleted. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourselves further and join one or more of our conversations.

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.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

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!

Wednesday the 1st of June will be the first Wednesday of the month, and in accord with our planning this would be the week that we talk about art and music and poetry. The way we described it at Eventbrite was:

- First Wednesday of the Month - Questions from the Floor - Bring your questions on any topic related to Epicurus that you wish.

Let's use this thread to make suggestions as to topics to include - which means if you have a suggestion for a particular topic and would like to talk about it, please post it here.

Just posted on Facebook:

Our review of the final Chapter of A Few Days In Athens is now online. We'll record one more session tonight in recap of the book and then the series will be over. Thanks to all who participated, and the edited recordings of the sessions will be available in the future for those who are interested at the link below.

Updated graphic for Wednesday the 25th ----

Revised LOGO for this week - thanks Kalosyni!

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Twenty Three of Lucretius Today.

This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

Today we continue in Epicurus' letter to Herodotus, and address some difficult material about the properties and qualities of atoms and bodies and what it means to exist. We probably raise more issues than we answer in this episode, so please review the show notes and we will come back to these issues in the next show.

Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

Bailey

All these properties have their own peculiar means of being perceived and distinguished, provided always that the aggregate body goes along with them and is never wrested from them, but in virtue of its comprehension as an aggregate of qualities acquires the predicate of body.

[70] Furthermore, there often happen to bodies and yet do not permanently accompany them accidents, of which we must suppose neither that they do not exist at all nor that they have the nature of a whole body, nor that they can be classed among unseen things nor as incorporeal. So that when according to the most general usage we employ this name, we make it clear that accidents have neither the nature of the whole, which we comprehend in its aggregate and call body, nor that of the qualities which permanently accompany it, without which a given body cannot be conceived.

[71] But as the result of certain acts of apprehension, provided the aggregate body goes along with them, they might each be given this name, but only on occasions when each one of them is seen to occur, since accidents are not permanent accompaniments. And we must not banish this clear vision from the realm of existence, because it does not possess the nature of the whole to which it is joined nor that of the permanent accompaniments, nor must we suppose that such contingencies exist independently (for this is inconceivable both with regard to them and to the permanent properties), but, just as it appears in sensation, we must think of them all as accidents occurring to bodies, and that not as permanent accompaniments, or again as having in themselves a place in the ranks of material existence; rather they are seen to be just what our actual sensation shows their proper character to be.

[72] Moreover, you must firmly grasp this point as well; we must not look for time, as we do for all other things which we look for in an object, by referring them to the general conceptions which we perceive in our own minds, but we must take the direct intuition, in accordance with which we speak of “a long time” or “a short time,” and examine it, applying our intuition to time as we do to other things. Neither must we search for expressions as likely to be better, but employ just those which are in common use about it.

Nor again must we predicate of time anything else as having the same essential nature as this special perception, as some people do, but we must turn our thoughts particularly to that only with which we associate this peculiar perception and by which we measure it.

[73] For indeed this requires no demonstration, but only reflection, to show that it is with days and nights and their divisions that we associate it and likewise also with internal feelings or absence of feeling, and with movements and states of rest; in connection with these last again we think of this very perception as a peculiar kind of accident, and in virtue of this we call it time.

HICKS

They all have their own characteristic modes of being perceived and distinguished, but always along with the whole body in which they inhere and never in separation from it; and it is in virtue of this complete conception of the body as a whole that it is so designated.

[70] Again, qualities often attach to bodies without being permanent concomitants. They are not to be classed among invisible entities nor are they incorporeal. Hence, using the term 'accidents' in the commonest sense, we say plainly that 'accidents' have not the nature of the whole thing to which they belong, and to which, conceiving it as a whole, we give the name of body, nor that of the permanent properties without which body cannot be thought of.

[71]And in virtue of certain peculiar modes of apprehension into which the complete body always enters, each of them can be called an accident. But only as often as they are seen actually to belong to it, since such accidents are not perpetual concomitants. There is no need to banish from reality this clear evidence that the accident has not the nature of that whole – by us called body – to which it belongs, nor of the permanent properties which accompany the whole. Nor, on the other hand, must we suppose the accident to have independent existence (for this is just as inconceivable in the case of accidents as in that of the permanent properties); but, as is manifest, they should all be regarded as accidents, not as permanent concomitants, of bodies, nor yet as having the rank of independent existence. Rather they are seen to be exactly as and what sensation itself makes them individually claim to be.

[72]There is another thing which we must consider carefully. We must not investigate time as we do the other accidents which we investigate in a subject, namely, by referring them to the preconceptions envisaged in our minds; but we must take into account the plain fact itself, in virtue of which we speak of time as long or short, linking to it in intimate connexion this attribute of duration. We need not adopt any fresh terms as preferable, but should employ the usual expressions about it.

Nor need we predicate anything else of time, as if this something else contained the same essence as is contained in the proper meaning of the word 'time' (for this also is done by some). We must chiefly reflect upon that to which we attach this peculiar character of time, and by which we measure it.

[73] No further proof is required: we have only to reflect that we attach the attribute of time to days and nights and their parts, and likewise to feelings of pleasure and pain and to neutral states, to states of movement and states of rest, conceiving a peculiar accident of these to be this very characteristic which we express by the word 'time.' [He says this both in the second book "On Nature" and in the Larger Epitome.]

Quote from reneliza

I originally drew this out with whatever markers I had on my desk and picked pink at first just because I like it, but then the more I thought it through, pink is the perfect color for this, because it is defined by being some mix of red and white. If you take it all the way to either extreme, it's literally not pink anymore. This isn't to say anything about "higher" or "lower" pleasures, but rather that although the instinct is probably to say that darker pink=more pink, that can be debunked easily by pointing out that red is not "more pink" than pink.

A really useful aspect of displaying this issue by image (colors, the vessel analogy, etc) is that you play to the issue of the senses vs intellectual reasoning. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? You're interplaying the senses against the reasoning and having to confront that it's your labeling of the object that gives it it's "moral significance" rather than what you're seeing with your eyes. Are you optimistic and half full, or pessimistic and half-empty? Either way your eyes are reporting exactly the same thing and your mind has to take responsibility for the feeling it generates.

I get the same reaction from the use of colors or shapes. Our eyes tend to act in automatic ways, but we can use a diagram and explanation to force ourselves to confront that our mind is what is doing the labeling. Once we see that we can make progress toward realizing that we ourselves are playing a large part in creating our pleasurable or painful emotions.

All sorts of "optical illusions" probably also have the same value as teaching tools.

Quote from Godfrey

I don't remember offhand if such a scholion already exists, but it seems like it should!

You could surely create one by quoting or citing either Seneca, or Plato from Philebus!

Quote from Don

The addition of pleasure *IS* the removal of pain ONLY because the two can't co-exist. Where there is pleasure, there is not pain.

Yes and I think that's pretty close to the intersection of the feeling / intellectual issue. We can feel that pleasure and pain can't co-exist, because we by experience feel only one of the other at a time.

However unless we "think about" and "reason through" the issue, and identify by definition that there are only two feelings (all good feelings are "pleasure" and all bad feelings as "pain") and then we go forward and realize intellectually that this means that "pleasure and pain" can't co-exist, then we're not in a position to extend these findings to their logical conclusions.

We (most of us) won't be able to identify that it is reasonable to say that "pleasure" can be "full" in the bottom left and bottom right circles that ReneLiza has identified as also fully pink/pleasure. We will think instead that in order to have a full life we have to go for the top right circle, or even to keep darkening that circle or changing its shades on and on and on, never stopping, when we should realize all along that as long as the white/pain is gone, the circle is fully "pink."

In this a word game? Yes. Does it fully satisfy us when we get old and we want to keep living forever? Probably not. But does it help us realize that no matter how long we stay on the treadmill of time we can't improve the experience of running full speed on that treadmill? I think so, yes.

DeWitt's mountaintop analogy is probably more attractive than comparing life to a "treadmill." Even with a mountaintop, which we all generally see as "good," no matter how long we stay at the summit of the mountain the experience really doesn't get any better after we've looked around for a relatively short while.

Agree with Don - spot on, and a useful chart and description as well.

I would add as further explanation that your description ("In the picture, the bright pink represents more intense or active pleasures and the pale pink represents passive pleasures, with white representing "neutral." Which circle is the most pink? Except for the first one, they are all at the limit of pinkness. Darker pink is not more or less pink than lighter pink. They're both pleasure, the difference is just the shade.") is necessary for understanding the point of the chart.

I don't think that a person looking at the chart without explanation would conclude that "except for the first one, all are at the limit of pinkness." Without "explanation" (which comes through philosophy) I think most people would say that the top right circle is the "most pink" because they would be automatically be looking at the darkness (intensity) and fullness (purity) of the color in the circle as making it "most pink."

However, with the explanation, which I agree makes sense by explaining that "pink" includes all shades of pink, the chart conveys exactly the point which is intended: that the "limit of pleasure" does not mean "the most intense pleasure possible" but in fact means a state in which pleasure cannot be increased BY DEFINITION.

I would say that the essential point here is that you are showing the LOGIC of statements such as:

PD03. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once.

But even more importantly and helpfully, this helps with the explanation of 18, 19, and 20, because it is the logical /philosophical 'reasoned understanding" and the "measuring, by reason, the limits of pleasure," and "the mind, having attained a reasoned understanding" which enable us to understand the point. There's the other citation to the point that not everyone is capable of figuring out the problem, and this is the reason we need Epicurean philosophy, because we can't "feel" our way to a reasoned understanding that full life does not require an infinite time:

PD18. The pleasure in the flesh is not increased when once the pain due to want is removed, but is only varied: and the limit as regards pleasure in the mind is begotten by the reasoned understanding of these very pleasures, and of the emotions akin to them, which used to cause the greatest fear to the mind.

PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure.

PD20. The flesh perceives the limits of pleasure as unlimited, and unlimited time is required to supply it. But the mind, having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good of the flesh and its limits, and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come, supplies us with the complete life, and we have no further need of infinite time; but neither does the mind shun pleasure, nor, when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short, in any way, of the best life.

So that takes us back to the point I will argue relentlessly, that PD3 and referring to the "limit of quantity of pleasure" the references in Menoeceus to pleasure being equal to absence of pain are not a call to asceticism.

Instead, they are a call to a reasoned understanding of how in fact it does make sense to see "Pleasure" as the goal of life, in contrast to "virtue" or "piety" or "meaningfulness" or whatever else anyone wants to suggest. Unless those bring pleasure, they are worthless.