We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
We cannot rank pleasures.
Wait are you disagreeing with Godfrey's point too when he says "of course they're not"?
I definitely rank my pleasures -- steak is much more pleasant than hot dogs.
I would say you rank your desires. A desire for steak is stronger for *you.* That doesn't rank the "pleasure* derived from steak better than that from hot dogs.
but if we extended the point that pleasures cannot be compared or ranked in any way at all, that would be the reduction to the absurd, so in my mind that proves that this cannot have been Epicurus' meaning.
Oh, I don't agree with that at all. We cannot rank pleasures. We CAN rank desires for pleasures in context of their place and time. I think this is exactly what Epicurus meant.
My initial reaction to splitting the discussion of desires and their results is to be wary of that, because just like virtue, what does it gain anything to talk about desires apart from the results of pursuing those desires? In the end there is nothing given by nature for the decision of what to choose and to avoid other than pleasure and pain. A science of desires separated from their consequences, would be no more helpful or useful than a science of virtue, apart from the results of pursuing those virtues.
I think we're talking about the exact opposite of this. There should be no talk of desires without talk of their results for the individual. That's what distinguishes them from talk of pleasures. Is my desire to pursue the pleasure of intoxicating beverages prudent? Depends. If I have no commitments later and don't "act the fool" to preserve my reputation, that desire could be pursued.
I think talk of a "science of desires" is a slippery slope again possibly devolves into adding up Utilitarian dolors and hedons. Epicurus endorsed simply pointing to the pursuit of pleasure of children and animals as proof of pleasure's being the good to which all other instrumental goods points. Why do we practice wisdom? Because it brings us pleasure.
we still have to deal with the question: "Are all pleasures the same in all respects so that we should consider the choice of any pleasure to be equivalent to the choice of any other?"
I don't think all pleasures are identical. They are varied. And choices are definitely not equivalent. It's all about the consequences stemming from the desires for different pleasures. And desires for the same pleasure at different times. One time it may be prudent. Another time, not.
One thing that just struck me is:
We choose which *desires* to choose and reject not pleasures.
Desires are necessary, natural, etc.; Pleasures are NOT categorized. By definition, all pleasures are "good." It is the results of desires for specific pleasures that feed into whether one chooses to fulfill a desire or not.
Again, this section of the debate is about how to evaluate persistence or time of pleasure vs intensity or depth of pleasure,
I'm going to throw a fly in the ointment here and say I think this discussion is (also) about how we select pleasures to chase and which to avoid.
That's a lot of post this early in the day, but I'll have something say later... Oh, I just realized that sounds more ominous than I meant it 
Good discussion. Look forward to reading others' responses.
I interpret that "the most pleasant" with the idea of pleasure *over a period of time.* The *length* of time is not the focus; it's the *persistence* of pleasure over the time in question.
First, I should slightly amend that statement. I'll add:
I interpret that phrase "the most pleasant"
withas the idea of pleasures maintained *over a period of time.* The *length* of time is not the focus; it's the *persistence* of pleasure writ large over the time in question.
That's why Epicurus can say "[We choose] not the longest time but that in which one enjoys the fruits of that which brings the greatest pleasure."
This coincides with Fragment 116:
116. I summon you to sustained enjoyment and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have. Plut. Adv. Col. 17
There's some disagreement on how that last phrase should be translated evidently, but, for my purposes here the first part is the important one. "Sustained enjoyment" in this translation is ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς hedonas sunekheis, literally, "continuous/continual/unremitting pleasures" That "continuous/continual" is where I'm getting Epicurus's summons to us to have been to experience continuous pleasure throughout our life. To make choices to make sure pleasures "persist" throughout our life, no matter the length of that life.
I'm also drawing on my recent "re-discovery" of Cicero thanks to you when "Torquatus" says:
Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind...
or, as Reid, translates:
Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them ;
So, again, we make choices that will lead to a life of "continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures." Pleasure is maintained throughout one's life.
From my perspective, it is not the "time" involved in the individual pleasure that's most (or even) important. The important things are the choices we make to continue to experience pleasures great, numerous, and constant throughout our life.
Your spreadsheet and focus on time or intensity or depth gets away from the idea that the number of pleasures is "great" and "numerous." It doesn't matter, I don't think, how deep, intense, or prolonged any individual pleasure is. It's the idea that we should imbue our entire lives with "continuous enjoyment" of "numerous" pleasures.
Your friendship example strikes me as bolstering my point. If you fail to protect your friend, you will spend the rest of your life regretting their loss and your failure to come to their aid. The pain will "persist" throughout your life. However, if you lose your life doing something for the "pleasure" of your friendship, your "pleasure" is maintained throughout your life no matter if it is cut short. This also strikes me as a warning/exhortation to "pluck the day" carpe diem when it is available. There is no guarantee of tomorrow.
You're right. Don wasn't around for the spreadsheet discussion. I joined in Feb 2020. The spreadsheet and numbers remind me too much of Bentham's hedons and dolors in his felicific calculus for my taste, a little too Utilitarian for me.
So, I will say, your visceral reaction to my response actually surprised me. I didn't see it as controversial at all. And I realize these responses here aren't going to convince you, but I feel concentrating on the trees of worrying about the intensity or depth or duration of an individual pleasure takes our attention away from the forest of pleasure to which Epicurus is calling us to experience.
Here's my literal translation of the section of Menoikeus:
Just as, on the one hand, the most food is not chosen but that which brings the greatest pleasure; as well as, on the other hand, not the longest time but that in which one enjoys the fruits of that which brings the greatest pleasure.
LOL! Well, well, we've finally found something we disagree about. 
How would you interpret "the most pleasant"?
"And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant."
Exactly. I interpret that "the most pleasant" with the idea of pleasure *over a period of time.* The *length* of time is not the focus; it's the *persistence* of pleasure over the time in question.
Personally, I think you're onto something with the short- vs long-term pleasure. Cassius may disagree. I've interpreted the Cyrenaic position to be "always pleasure in the moment" grab it now. Whereas Epicurus's philosophy was to make choices that would provide sustainable pleasure and the prospect that it would persist.
I wouldn't take on that skeptic label just yet
Consider how this sounds when taken as a whole:
As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed, pleasure in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of enjoyment in the mind is produced by reasoning out these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest fears in the mind. Infinite time and finite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, reasoning out the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life. One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pain produced by a lack of something and to make one’s entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle.
I've come around to thinking some of the PDs should simply be read together and not in isolation. The original text didn't split them up. It was one continuous text. My suggestion is to read 18-21 as one continuous text. It seems to provide a much better context.
I'm late to the game (mea culpa!), but here are my thoughts as a slight edit. Overall, I think you're definitely on the right track. Thanks for putting the list together!
1) Do not chase desires that can never be fully satisfied.*
1a) Enjoy the occasional luxury when it comes your way.
2) Flee** from bodily and mental pains unless greater pleasure may be the result.
3) Take pleasure in the study of philosophy which leads to tranquility and peace of mind.*** (with a nod to Godfrey )
4) Cultivate and enjoy friendships with like-minded people.
5) Savor the sweetness of life.
5a) Neither cause harm to yourself nor to others.
6) Realize that at a certain point enjoyment comes to it's totality, and any additional pleasure is like "icing on a cake". (I like the idea you're getting at here and it's an important one... just wondering about the wording. I actually like the "icing on the cake" metaphor.)
*1: I'm trying to get across the pursuit of limitless wealth or limitless power. Those cannot be filled and usually defined as "empty" in the original texts. But the way I've worded it could be misconstrued.
**2: I was going to say "avoid" but I don't like that, as in the conventional wording of "choice and avoidance". The original Greek has the connotation of "fleeing"... Choice and flight. Always struck me as much more active.
***3. The idea of tranquility and peace of mind still appeals to me. I find it easier to appreciate pleasures with a tranquil mind, and, from my readings of the text, Epicurus backs this up. I recognize that tranquility isn't the goal, pleasure is. But tranquility/peace of mind makes appreciating pleasure much easier from my perspective.
I realize this is an old thread, but this opinion piece on Keltner's research was intriguing enough to share. This seemed an appropriate place to put it.
This thread (start at Godfrey 's post near the top) talks about magnets possessing some life-force, anima, ψυχή, etc. Didn't remember to bring up during the podcast but an interesting thread nonetheless.
I'll beat Joshua to the punch and post:
One can also go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole and link to the miasma theory of disease, the Crossness Pumping Station, etc., from that link.
While I admit the foul odors themselves maybe didn't lead to disease (other than maybe chronic watery eyes, asthma, etc), the ancients did have the idea that there was airborne transmission of disease.
That being said, imagining what it had to be like to live in London during the Great Sink makes me shudder. Thanks for bringing this historical event to our attention, Joshua !
4. Develop courage through adversity, it makes us stronger.
Yeah, I'm not watching it either. That 4 sounds Stoic not Epicurean.
"Constituamus aliquem magnis, multis, perpetuis fruentem..."
I like Reid's.
"enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant"
Yonges is okay there, but I see other issues elsewhere: "enjoying pleasures great, numerous, and perpetual,"
I don't like Parker and Rackham's paraphrase there.
Reid? https://hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.32000000647208
This uses "agreeably" in XII.
