Choosing from the list in post #26 above, I find that "rejection" resides in a nice place. More oomph than "avoid," less action packed than "flee."
Likewise with "commit." So my leanings at the moment are toward commitment/rejection, commit/reject. Is that where this is heading for others?
This is an excellent case study in the difficulties of translation 
Am I correct in understanding that, based on the above, a proper English replacement for choose/avoid would be pursue/flee?
If so, it's much more action-packed 
This idea of simplifying down to two words is intriguing and somewhat alluring. But when I think of it as a response to a Stoic pairing of "work and play" it comes into better focus for me. The Stoic worldview is idealized (made up? maybe that's too harsh...) and so it's really quite simple to come up with simple descriptions and clever exercises. The Epicurean worldview is based on observed reality, which is messy. Therefore I think that trying to adapt Epicurean philosophy to a Stoic-friendly format is ultimately unproductive.
Another example of this mismatch between Stoics and Epicureans is a closer look at "is it in my control or not" and where that fits into a process of choosing and fleeing (with a nod to Don). Stoics apparently keep this idea firmly in mind at all times. As I think about choosing and fleeing, whether something is under my control or not only comes into play when I fear that something might not be under my control, which usually occurs later on in my thought process.
Having said all this, I guess that I'm leaning toward "choosing and fleeing" (or choice and avoidance) because it acknowledges both pleasure and pain. Or "pursuing pleasure." What’s important is grasping the wider concepts, the shorthand and outlines are really just reminders of the bigger picture.
The kitchen example falls apart because there is only one "thing:" food. Absence of food leaves nothing. Absence of pain involves two "things:" pain and pleasure. So if there is no pain there is pure pleasure.
I would say that is an implication that should never go unchallenged.
Yes, I've noticed that!
Epicurus may have been dealing with similar conflicts, and his categories are, to me, quite an improvement over the other versions of dealing with desire. Having said that, even once (or if) we settle on an appropriate definition of the term, we'll find that desires are wide-ranging by nature. That's what the categories are most valuable for, at least in my humble opinion.
In terms of the difficulty of pinning down a definition, "desire" is quite like "pleasure." They're also quite alike in terms of pinning down a workable Epicurean ethics.
We've given a lot of effort to understanding what Epicurus meant by "pleasure;" the same effort needs to be applied to understanding what he meant by "desire." And that is not to imply in any way that they are the same thing: they're not. I tend to agree with how Julia and Todd are interpreting it, and I also agree that a good look at the original passages in the Greek may be helpful (by someone who understands Greek, not by me!)
As for choice: between desire and pleasure or pain lie choice or avoidance.
(Oops, I see that I missed the two posts above.)
To you and quite possibly to most people, this might be splitting hairs, but to me it makes all the difference that it is not the desired object-or-event itself which motivates me. What motivates me, is the pleasure of having accomplished my desire. For example, the knowledge that I desire a new car and true love does not motivate me one bit. What motivates me – and indeed the only thing about that which motivates me! – is the pleasure I can predict to experience once I have attained a new car or true love.
That's a good hair to split, as we're trying to come to clarity. I agree with your conclusion.
Desire is not the motivator, according to VS71 desire is the thing to be evaluated (“Every desire must be confronted by this question: […]”). Pleasure – if it is predicted to arise from attaining the desired object-or-event – should be the motivator (pleasure is the guide to life – not desire!).
Well said. And this is where the categories of desire fit in, as one way to evaluate the desire.
In my understanding of language, a desire which was determined to lead to pain ceases to be a desire, and will henceforth be, variously, an addiction, a compulsion, a confusion, an obsession, an urge, …
I wouldn't go this far... I would call some of these unnatural desires, but they're still desires. An urge, I believe, is synonymous with a desire. Some desires lead to pain if unfulfilled, these are natural and necessary. Some lead to net pain and these are unnatural desires. Some lead to short-term pain in order to obtain net pleasure, these I think would be considered natural and unnecessary desires.
This last category would include something like "I'm going to go work out, which I hate, and which will bring me pain. But I'm doing it for the net pleasure of fitting into my old jeans or having a wild affair or going on a ski vacation &c."
There are many different ways of looking at things and therefore lots of charts, but I am tempted to say in the fundamental abstract that the first question is always as stated in "VS71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?"
In my own mind I have a very hard time separating "desire" from "pleasure and pain" and "choice and avoidance" or even "willpower," and that's a major reason I have a problem separating out "desire" as if it is some fundamental of human nature apart from everything else. I think they are all a part of a bigger picture and acting as if there is a "desire" part of your brain that acts totally on its on is going to lead to lots of problems.
Cassius there's a lot to chew on here, but at the risk of oversimplification I'll take a quick stab at it before dinner 
VS71 is a great way to analyze this. To my understanding, desire can be considered something that motivates me. The object of one's desire is, for example, a new car or true love. Or, in my current case, dinner. What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished is, ultimately, pleasure or pain. I think that it's pretty much as simple as that.
Desire and pleasure/pain, then, are two different things. Desire is the motivator, pleasure/pain is the result. The only qualification is that some desires might be considered pains. But they are still a motivator in that they make you want to do something. The way that you choose to eliminate that pain can lead to either pleasure or to more pain, so it's helpful to think what categories of desire might be involved as you choose/avoid how to eliminate that pain in order to obtain the resultant pleasure.
At least for me, willpower is another subject.
I think that it can be instructive to read some simplified neuroscience books to get a better grasp on the subject. Obviously Epicurus wasn't privy to that, but his intuition was remarkably close as far as I can tell. I'm guessing that Don and others may have something to add....
But for now, I think that I shall choose my natural/necessary desire for dinner over my desire to philosophize. All philosophy begins in the stomach, after all.
Titus it's interesting that you mention the Stoic "what's in my power." As I was thinking about the desires in my first post above, that kept popping into my head. Much to my discomfort! Thanks for reminding me of the benefits of the categories, with which I firmly agree.
But there comes a point where the fullness of pleasure is elusive, and not due to imaginary fears or social media. And even when our basic needs are safely met and the flowers smell nice and the zip lines are well greased. Life is full of fears and disturbances beyond the gods and the afterlife and I think Epicurus was addressing those as well. Sometimes simple pleasures and having met our needs is sufficient for the fullness of pleasure. Sometimes additional reasoning in the midst of upheaval (of whatever type) is called for.
PD16 Chance steals only a bit into the life of a wise person: for throughout the complete span of his life the greatest and most important matters have been, are, and will be directed by the power of reason. (St-Andre)
Re post #12 graphic: also include PDs 15, 21, 26 and 29, in addition to 30.
I guess my wording wasn't very accurate, as I wasn't trying to imply that at all. There can be great mental pleasure in reliving memories of past pleasures and accomplishments when one is infirm. But everyone has different ideas. There's the half-joking phrase "pain is pleasure," which for some may ring true but for others is sheer lunacy. I read today of an ultra-marathoner speaking of her "pain cave." Not sure what to make of that!
I recently met a former (1980s) Mr. Olympia and Mr. Universe of bodybuilding. He was really quite inspiring: amazing energy and joie de vivre, and a true mentor to innumerable bodybuilders. It was a real eye opener for me, although I have no plans to take up bodybuilding.
Anyway, I'm off to tune iinto some Olympic volleyball
Unlimited seems to me to overlap with what Epicurus refers to as groundless, which can be either natural or unnatural according to the PDs as I read them.
Seeming to produce harm, in PD30, could be considered a net result of pain over pleasure. But as Martin points out, that comes down to individual preferences or circumstances.
Take the timely example of Olympic athletes: the effort of training and intensity of competition may leave them with various degrees of debilitating injuries and no guarantee of success. But, for whatever reason, these athletes have determined that the pleasure will outweigh the pain. Maybe that pleasure is in following the dream, maybe in reliving memories of the pleasures of competing at the highest level. And maybe in reliving these memories while they hobble around on artificial joints.
As far as I understand, only unnatural would be defined as due to groundless opinion.
That was my thinking, too, but then I read this:
PD30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind.
So my current understanding is that the difference between natural/unnecessary and unnatural/unnecessary desires is that the latter "seem to produce harm."
So I just read through the PDs with the subject of upheaval in mind, and they appear to be written for just that. Who knew?
In the historical context, it would seem that that is exactly what they were written for.
During the political wackiness in the month of July 2024 in the United States, I was giving some thought to how an Epicurean might best apply the philosophy to their life when the world around them seems to be spinning out of control. But times of upheaval are many and varied: they can include political hostility or uncertainty, natural disasters, personal or family tragedies and many similar events. Following is a loose list of thoughts to hopefully stimulate thought and discussion on how the categories of desire can be useful, perhaps therapeutic, in confronting chaos. At the moment, I haven’t got much further than compiling this list. And of course many of the questions will only apply to a particular type of upheaval, and the answers will be different for everyone and in each situation.
SYNOPSIS OF THE CATEGORIES OF DESIRE:
Natural and necessary desires: a) some for happiness; b) some for physical health; c) some for life itself
Natural and unnecessary desires: a) due to groundless opinion; b) don’t bring pain if unfulfilled; c) require intense exertion
Unnatural and unnecessary desires: a) due to groundless opinion; b) don’t bring pain if unfulfilled; c) hard to achieve; 4) seem to produce harm
EPICUREAN EXERCISES - CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, EACH AS A SEPARATE EXERCISE:
What type of desire is it to wish for my favorite sports team to win? How can I most fruitfully respond to this desire?
What type of desire is it to wish for my preferred political candidate or party to win? How can I most fruitfully respond to this desire?
What type of desire is it to wish for safety in the event of a natural disaster? How can I most fruitfully respond to this desire?
What type of desire is it to wish for the health of a loved one? How can I most fruitfully respond to this desire?
What type of desire is it to wish to live to the ripe old age of 150? How can I most fruitfully respond to this desire?
What type of desire is it to wish for a loved one to live to the ripe old age of 150? How can I most fruitfully respond to this desire?
MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS:
How much of the upheaval is hostile to me as belonging to a particular group?
What are the potential fruits and harms of looking out for the interests and/or safety of people or communities outside of my particular “tribe?”
At what point does engagement cause harm? To whom? What kind of harm: mental, physical, economic or other?
At what point does lack of engagement cause harm? To whom? What kind of harm: mental, physical, economic or other?
At what point may the upheaval affect my safety or the safety of my loved ones?
Is it natural and necessary to assure the health, safety and well-being of those who are important to me?
How can I maintain my ataraxia while still being concerned about the health and well-being of your loved one(s)? Is this the objective of Epicurean practice?
How can I maintain a balance of pleasure over pain during a particular crisis? Is this the objective of Epicurean practice?
Is my goal to maintain ataraxia, or a balance of pleasure over pain during the particular time of upheaval, or is to survive in the most prudent manner to maintain a balance of pleasure over pain over time? Or both?
What does PD04 have to say about this, if anything? "Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains." (St-Andre translation). Does this apply to mental pain as well, or does this imply that I can have a stable mental state in times of adversity?
I'm realizing that this has become fairly wide ranging.... In the event that any discussion comes of this, it might be best to manage it in various new threads which link back to this one. Anyway, that's all I've got!
Coincidentally I've begun reading The Longevity Diet by Valter Longo from the USC Longevity Center. Although I'm not sure what to make of the diet, the first two chapters struck me as interesting when considering the Epicurean gods and theories as to how they might maintain their incorruptibility.
Unfortunately I'm not able to provide a more detailed analysis at this time, but it's worth a look in this regard.
What is a good Epicurean exercise that you can do using a smartwatch? Simple!
Stop wearing your smartwatch for 1 week. Notice and respond to your sensations and feelings. And your preconceptions.
Enjoy!
So if I'm reading correctly @Twentier , you're saying that "amount" isn't a part of the original Greek? Am I understanding that correctly?
(Shouldn't the big jar be pouring into the little jar?)
I agree with Cassius ' conclusion in post #3. The way I think of PD19 is: a life consists of a finite amount of time. For an individual, the amount of pleasure in their life will be limited by the length of their life. Infinite time is therefore irrelevant to calculating the amount of pleasure in a particular life. This interpretation, to me, is confirmed by reading the PD in context as Don has provided.
The same limit would apply to pain: one needn't fear an eternity of pain in the sixth circle of hell. Your lifetime is finite, and all of your pleasure and pain will be contained within that finite lifetime.
