The feelings are the primary and the final guides for our little boats, but like the other canonical faculties they need to be considered and evaluated to be acted upon in the most advantageous way in each given situation.
Considering and evaluating are not part of the canon but they're definitely crucial to choosing and avoiding. They just tend to mislead without the canon and are therefore useless on their own.
That song is quite a time capsule!
Suppose it could be some kind of variation of the Plutarch statement about the greatest joy arising from escape from the greatest evil?
That's how I had read it, although without thinking of Plutarch. Epicurus Wiki is along the same lines:
To me, "life as the greatest good" is a fruitful thing to ponder but I probably wouldn't call it Epicurean, at least as I'm thinking about it at the moment. It begs the question "how do I respond to what is precious to me?" Some replies are: study it, appreciate it, respect it, use it fully, preserve it, learn from it, enjoy it fully.... Also, being overprotective of what is precious can lead to pain.
As an Epicurean I would turn to the guidance of pleasure/pain to understand how to deal with something precious to me: this emphasizes the faculty of Feelings and therefore that maximizing pleasure would be my "goal" in interacting with the precious thing. But a Stoic, for instance, might use virtue or duty as a guide or an end. This could bring them pleasure, but also great consternation.
What he's talking about here is not "good" as in just the adjective "good/bad" it's "the good" ταγαθον (tagathon) as in the goal, the telos, the Alpha/Omega, the beginning and the end of life. Pleasure = The Good. He's planting his flag for pleasure as The Good in opposition to those who would tout virtue, etc.
I was going to bring that up.... DeWitt makes a similar point except that as I recall he refers to the "greatest good" as life itself. Pleasure would then be the telos if I understand him correctly. Greatest good, good, telos, summum bonum... oh my!
Yes I agree it seems very similar to Lisa Feldman Barrett's work. 
It's interesting to me because he is by his own description not a philosopher and is studying effective strategies. So I guess we could expect that some things would end up in one philosophical camp and some in another, and that's what he gets. Some statements sound Epicurean to me, others very anti-Epicurean. Probably there are a lot of preconceived ideas, perhaps Aristotelean, that he is unconsciously working with as well.
There has been some discussion here as to how to define "happiness." Here is a brief article discussing how happiness is thought of in different cultures:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/07/happiest-country-definition/619441/
Four different models of happiness:
- Happiness comes from good relationships with the people you love
- Happiness comes from a higher consciousness
- Happiness comes from doing what you love, usually with others
- Happiness comes from simply feeling good.
A point made in the article is that you can’t rank happiness, but you can classify it. It brings to mind the subjectivity of happiness, which in turn makes it difficult to define.
A very brief article on neuroscience for dummies, applicable to the Canon:
https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/interoception-how-to-improve-your-gut-feeling
The embedded video discusses feelings:
- Feeling is the process of perceiving what is going on in the organism when you are in the throes of an emotion.
- Feeling guides us in advance planning.
This showed up in one of my feeds and could be fruitful for discussion:
The link is to a podcast and comes with a full transcription, which is quite convenient.
I'm not sure where to begin the discussion so I'll just post this and see where it goes 
These provide great examples of things to choose (paying attention) and to avoid (mumbo jumbo). Personally I feel that paying attention to one's faculties is a key part of an Epicurean lifestyle. Mindfulness and meditation are potentially useful tools in that endeavor. There are occasional points of overlap between the traditions from which they come and EP, and these points can be useful to understand the tools. Of course the danger is that one ends up misunderstanding the overlaps and practicing an inconsistent mishmash of a philosophy, so one must pay attention 
Stallings, lines 75-79:
In triumph he returns to us, and brings us back this prize:
To know what things can come about, and what cannot arise,
And what law limits the power of each, with deep-set boundary stone.
Therefore it is the turn of Superstition to lie prone,
Trod underfoot, while by his victory we reach the heavens.
Having not watched the video, the "takeaways" slide looks to me like total gibberish! It looks like he's trying way too hard to morph the two philosophies into one, and in the distorting the essential ideas of (at least) Epicurus.
Cassius I'm curious to see what you find out about the closing quote by Jefferson. At first reading there are several things that I don't agree with, but going to the source may put them in a better context.
This reminds of "the three jewels" of Buddhism: Buddha, dharma and sangha, which may or may not be similar to: Epicurus, the true philosophy and the Garden. The Garden would have been a center for friendship as well as learning and practice. The corresponding Buddhist sangha has thrived over the millennia and I imagine has been instrumental in keeping Buddhism thriving as well.
A case could be made that the disappearance of the gardens was even more contributory to the decline of Epicurean philosophy than the disappearance of the texts. In addition to their social functions, as centers of learning the gardens would have preserved the prior texts and added new ones.
Welcome Kalosyni !
I'm yet another one who spent a few years dabbling in Zen, before discovering the Hellenistic philosophers and ultimately Epicurus. Just recently I've been reviewing the 4 Noble Truths (suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering and the path to the end of suffering): the Buddha and Epicurus seem to have had similar concerns in some ways (without getting into the "absence of pain" discussion). Epicurus was attempting to remove irrational fears, which are one form of suffering. His treatment of desire, to me, is more nuanced and useful than the Buddhist desire to get rid of desires. His grounding in the Canon and observable reality is also both comforting and inspiring.
As to Joshua 's mention of rebirth, I can't quite figure out how rebirth squares with the Buddhist doctrine of "no self." Epicurus describes an impermanent, material consciousness that ends with the death of the body and precludes an afterlife as well as rebirth; this seems more consistent, believable and correct.
There's absolutely no evidence of Epicurus doing so, but as I reread books by today's Buddhist authors I almost get the sense that much of what Epicurus did was to correct the errors of Buddhist philosophy, just as he did with Plato.
PD07 and PD10 touch on purpose; in a roundabout way you could derive a definition of limits from them. Not the word, but the usefulness of the idea.
PD7: Some people want to be well esteemed and widely admired, believing that in this way they will be safe from others; if the life of such people is secure then they have gained its natural benefit, but if not then they have not gained what they sought from the beginning in accordance with what is naturally appropriate.
PD10: If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad).
I just happened to have this paper on the subject, but it's been quite some time since I read it and so I have no comments. Except to say that from scanning the first page it looks like there's lots to criticize!
Regarding PD3, there are also these two threads:
I think it's helpful to study PD3 and PD4 together, also exploring the practical ramifications, as a further aid to understanding the Canonic faculty of pleasure and pain.
As I understand it, a key component of Epicurean justice is that it relies on a compact and on someone appointed to enforce the compact. So my question regarding any anarchist "system" or any "system" eschewing government is: who makes and enforces compacts? It seems to me that some form of government is required in order to prevent a "system" reliant on aggression. But maybe I've read too much post-apocalyptic fiction
(Note that I put "system" in quotes because that word seems incompatible with anarchy, but I don't know what word is preferred.)
Book 3 of Lucretius has a lengthy discussion of the mind and the soul. Or of course the podcast episodes dealing with Book 3.
