Tyler philosophy is not a magic bullet, and when someone has a medical issue they always need to be relying on professional medical help. So I urge you to be sure you (or anyone with a clinical problem) is getting professional help and following those professionals' advice.
That having been said, much of Lucretius is devoted to using reasoned observation to study what goes on in nature, and with the senses, so as to better know how to process the perceptions we get from our senses.
Welcome Domagoj ! When you get a chance please let us know your background and interest in Epicurus. Thanks for using the forum!
That last post is an excellent example of how alone we are, and how important it is to work together to help develop an alternative.
On Knowledge Elayne wrote: 8. In isolation, each way of perceiving the environment can lead to errors of understanding the world. Then reasoning, both fast and slow, can add more errors of interpretation, both individually and in groups. 9. Despite these potential routes of error, we have so many different means of experiencing the world that it is pragmatically reasonable to accept certain redundantly confirmed conclusions as factual. I agree with Gould that a “fact” Is something so likely to be true that it would be silly not to accept it.
On a similar train of thought Diogenes of Oinanda wrote:
[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?
Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.
Other comments:
12. People who have meditated extensively or done other practices to change their brain functioning will often tell others that now they know the truth and that typical human brains operate under an illusion or delusion. In fact, these people have inactivated some of their brain functions. This does nothing to invalidate ordinary human experience or knowledge. <<< I COMPLETELY agree with this! 
3. Feelings are more important to typical humans than living longer. YEP!! Letter to Menoeceus: "And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest."
Now that I have finished reading the entire list I'll just say in summary that it is really excellent. No doubt any list can be nit-picked but on first read-through absolutely none of them jump out at me that would be something hard to reconcile with what I believe to be true about Epicurean philosophy.
Oh this prompts me already to say this:
4. At the subatomic particle level, unexpected events occur which appear as random or chance. It is not yet clear what this really represents.
Elayne I always recommend the article "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism" by AA Long for a very interesting discussion of how to reconcile "the swerve" and the indeterminacy which is implied there, with the determinacy that is also implied by that natural laws of physics which Epicurus also studied. If this is an area that interests you, I think you will find the Long article very helpful for an explanation of how BOTH exist within Epicurean philosophy, and how the ancients who had full access to Epicurean texts understood how Epicurus' position was not self-contradictory. I will find a link to that article and link it here. It is HERE in the files section of the main Facebook group.
Wow thank you for this detailed post! I know I will have lots more to say about this, but I wanted to go ahead and thank you for the time in posting this!
Thank you Elayne! It is great to have you hear and I hope it will be a long and enjoyable trip!
Welcome Elayne ! Thank you for joining us here. Our group of users here is somewhat different than the Facebook page, so if you get a chance and could say a few words about your background and interest in Epicurus please do!
Thanks Hiram -- I intend to link in response to this question some of our earlier discussions. For the time being I have just set these questions up first and will come back to them as time permits.
There's no rule that says we can't have many versions of this selection! It is indeed one of the best - but in fact the opening of each of the six books starts out with a rousing shout-out to Epicurus, and each one would be great to record.
It is with great pleasure that I post this link to a new presentation by Christos Yapijakis, founder and leader of the Athens Garden of Epicurus, entitled "Epicurean Philosophy, Modern Science, and Life." Not only is the article/presentation extremely interesting, but the question and answer session afterwards contains fascinating exchanges with Christos defending Epicurean philosophy against challenges from several quarters. Thanks to Christos for letting us know about this article and giving his permission for us to feature it here! The presentation is here.
What did Epicurus say about the size of the sun and whether the Earth was round or flat?
What did Epicurus say about whether living happily requires a knowledge of physics, and the nature of the universe?
What did Epicurus say about the value of friendship?
What did Epicurus say about ambition, or about the desire to improve oneself?
This has always struck me as one of the most important sections of the entire poem:
Lucretius Book 4, starting line 421 - Daniel Brown 1743 Edition
Observe, when your mettled horse stands still with you in the middle of a river, and you look down upon the rapid stream of the water, the force of the current seems to drive your horse violently upwards, and hurry you swiftly against the tide; and on which side soever you cast your eyes, all things seem to be borne along, and carried against the current in the same manner.
A long portico, though it be of equal breadth from one end to the other, and reaches far, supported by pillars of equal height, yet when you stand at one end to take a view of its whole extent, it contracts itself by degrees to a narrow point at the further end; the roof touches the floor, and both sides seem to meet, til it terminates at last in the sharp figure of a dark cone.
The sun, to Mariners, seems to rise out of the sea, and there again to set and hide his light; for they see nothing but the water and the sky; but therefore you are not to conclude rashly that the senses are at all deceived.
To those who know nothing of the sea, a ship in the port seems disabled, and to strive against the waves with broken oars; for that part of the oar and of the rudder that is above the water appears straight, but all below, being refracted, seems to be turned upwards, and to be bent towards the top of the water, and to float almost upon the surface of it.
So when the winds drive the light clouds along the sky in the night, t he moon and stars seem to fly against the clouds, and to be driven above them in a course quite opposite to that in which they naturally move.
And if you chance to press with your fingers under one of your eyes, the effect will be that every thing you look upon will appear double, every bright candle will burn with two flames, and all the furniture of the house will multiply and show double; every face about you, and every body, will look like two.
Lastly, when sleep has bound our limbs in sweet repose, and all the body lies dissolved in rest, we think ourselves awake; our members move, and in the gloomy darkness of the night we think we see the sun in broad day-light, and, though confined in bed, we wander over the heavens, the sea, the rivers, and the hills, and fancy we are walking through the plains. And sounds we seem to hear; and, though the tongue be still, we seem to speak, when the deep silence of night reigns all about us.
Many more things of this kind we observe and wonder at, which attempt to overthrow the certainty of our senses, but to no purpose - for things of this sort generally deceive us upon account of the judgment of the mind which we apply to them, and so we conclude we see things which we really do not; for nothing is more difficult than to distinguish things clear and plain from such as are doubtful, to which the mind is ready to add its assent, as it is inclined to believe everything imparted by the senses.
Lastly, if anyone thinks that he knows nothing, he cannot be sure that he knows this, when he confesses that he knows nothing at all. I shall avoid disputing with such a trifler, who perverts all things, and like a tumbler with his head prone to the earth, can go no otherwise than backwards.
And yet allow that he knows this, I would ask (since he had nothing before to lead him into such a knowledge) whence he had the notion what it was to know, or not to know; what it was that gave him an idea of Truth or Falsehood, and what taught him to distinguish between doubt and certainty?
But you will find that knowledge of truth is originally derived from the senses, nor can the senses be contradicted, for whatever is able by the evidence of an opposite truth to convince the senses of falsehood, must be something of greater certainty than they. But what can deserve greater credit than the senses require from us? Will reason, derived from erring sense, claim the privilege to contradict it? Reason – that depends wholly upon the senses,which unless you allow to be true, all reason must be false. Can the ears correct the eyes? Or the touch the ears? Or will taste confute the touch? Or shall the nose or eyes convince the rest? This, I think, cannot be, for every sense has a separate faculty of its own, each has its distinct powers; and therefore an object, soft or hard, hot or cold, must necessarily be distinguished as soft or hard, hot or cold, by one sense separately, that is, the touch. It is the sole province of another, the sight, to perceive the colors of things, and the several properties that belong to them. The taste has a distinct office. Odors particularly affect the smell, and sound the ears. And therefore it cannot be that one sense should correct another, nor can the same sense correct itself, since an equal credit ought to be given to each; and therefore whatever the senses at any time discover to us must be certain.
And though reason is not able to assign a cause why an object that is really four-square when near, should appear round when seen at a distance; yet, if we cannot explain this difficulty, it is better to give any solution, even a false one, than to deliver up all Certainty out of our power, to break in upon our first principle of belief, and tear up all foundations upon which our life and security depend. For not only all reason must be overthrown, but life itself must be immediately extinguished, unless you give credit to your senses. These direct you to fly from a precipice and other evils of this sort which are to be avoided, and to pursue what tends to your security. All therefore is nothing more than an empty parade of words that can be offered against the certainty of sense.
Lastly, as in a building, if the principle rule of the artificer be not true, if his line be not exact, or his level bear in to the least to either side, every thing must needs be wrong and crooked, the whole fabric must be ill-shaped, declining, hanging over, leaning and irregular, so that some parts will seem ready to fall and tumble down, because the whole was at first disordered by false principles. So the reason of things must of necessity be wrong and false which is founded upon a false representation of the senses.
What are the best places to start reading about Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy?
What are the central differences that separate Epicurus from other philosophers on the nature of Truth?
