New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
"strikes me" 
Well done!
1. Agreed.
2. Partially agree. "Real to us" seems too subjective for everything. There are some things that are "real" or true for the individual but there is also an objective reality we all need to agree on. (We won't get into the ultimate nature of reality here! I'm just talking about the everyday real world in which we move around in here.)
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed. No God needed.
5. Agreed. No need for Platonic Forms.
There are some things that are "real" or true for the individual but there is also an objective reality we all need to agree on.
Yes I agree with that. A significant part of coming to an agreement would be to define the terms as clearly as possible so we see if we can't come to a common understanding of how we are using those words "real" and "true." And I think that issue is what started some of the recent conversation as you were pointing out that it probably isn't sufficient to say that "we all just know" what "real" and "true" mean. ("We all just know" not being a good description of anyone here's position, but just a stand-in for the question of how we go about coming to agreement.)
I think it comes back to Elayne 's comment about evidence. It's not enough to use reason, we need evidence as "seen" by our senses (and the extension of our senses through instruments etc.).
It's not enough to use reason, we need evidence as "seen" by our senses (and the extension of our senses through instruments etc.).
I agree. We need to be able to articulate WHY that is so. The issue is so obscured in common discussion that many people seem to have become convinced that there is something called "reason" which makes evidence unnecessary, so it no longer appears to go without saying that "reason" requires evidence, and then explaining what kind of evidence we're talking about, and why it is in fact legitimate to rely on the evidence of the canonical faculties even though we are the first to admit that the information they provide may not in every instance be true to what we regard as the ultimate facts. it's the circular issue that Epicurus and Lucretius address directly: Ultimately there is NOTHING that can be used to justify an opinion (or reason itself) other than the evidence we obtain through the canonical faculties.
