32d hopelessly corrupt

[Constantinus Philo]

This passage seems to be hopelessly corrupt (unless I get it wrong):
ἡδονῇ δὲ καὶ λύπῃ, καθάπερ θερμῷ καὶ ψυχρῷ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις, τοτὲ μὲν ἀσπαστέον αὐτά,
if the dative of ἡδονῇ etc is ruled by the verbal adjective, then it makes no sense, if it is some attraction from the previous δοτέον, it is not natural.
PS: this is not to mention the end of the section ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἔνια δεχόμενα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔστιν ὅτε φύσιν where ὅτε is redundant.

[Constantinus Philo]

it may also depend on δοτέον understood from the previous context.

[jeidsath]

...ἐμφανὲς ἔσεσθαι τὸ περὶ τὴν ἡδονήν, πότερον ὅλον ἐστὶ τὸ γένος ἀσπαστόν, ἢ τοῦτο μὲν ἑτέρῳ τινὶ τῶν προειρημένων δοτέον ἡμῖν γενῶν, ἡδονῇ δὲ καὶ λύπῃ, καθάπερ θερμῷ καὶ ψυχρῷ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις, τοτὲ μὲν ἀσπαστέον αὐτά, τοτὲ δὲ οὐκ ἀσπαστέον, ὡς ἀγαθὰ μὲν οὐκ ὄντα, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἔνια δεχόμενα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔστιν ὅτε φύσιν.

I was sending emails all afternoon instead of doing my planned Philebus readthrough, so I don't know the context. Maybe I'll get some time this evening. But I understand the above, out of context, this way, serving as an indirect object to δοτέον:

Translating: ...that it shall be evident regarding pleasure, whether the entire class can be something that can be welcomed, or whether this is something to be assigned by us to one of the aforementioned class. That is, [to be assigned to] pleasure and to pain, in the same way as to heat and cold and all these sorts of things. At one time they are to be welcomed, at another not welcomed, just as good things are not existing, but sometimes and some things receiving the nature (when it is so) of the good.

As you can see, I thought that the ὅτε was local to the τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὅτε φύσιν.

I could be all wrong here, of course. I don't quite understand the way he's using γένος or ἀσπαστόν without the context, or what was τὰ προειρημένα that he refers to.