No, I'm in agreement with Epicurus, in contrast to the characterization this is replying to.

A human needs to be virtuous to be happy. A selfish person is less happy than they could be if they were not selfish. Thinking about one's self too much breeds neuroticism. Thinking about others breeds love, courage, and the rewards of seeing them happy.

All good philosophies have a common core since they're all based, in varying degrees, to the actuality of things. They may also have some amount of historical cross pollination and/or common roots.

True randomness is just as inexplicable as free will. What determines the outcome? A mysterious thing called the will or nothing at all? An undetermined yet somehow concrete outcome sounds pretty paradoxical.

The point is if an outside observer cannot predict the outcome, it's impossible to say anything further about it, either declaring it random or an act of will.

Can you feel things like love more strongly now?

If a genie offered me the choice between eradicating all billionaires, and curing all disease, I know which I'd choose.

Maybe a retaining wall a few feet away to at least prevent more leaning? Unless it's frostheave causing it, in which case the foundation just wasn't deep enough.

Phenomenon in that it has a phenomenal (consciously experienced) component. The Christmas spirit is a phenomenal gestalt similar to other complex emotions.

Buddhism isn't against hedonism, they're against simple solutions that don't work permanently. They're against simple, naive hedonism, but not hedonism in its broadest understanding: freedom from suffering.

David Pearce is a negative utilitarian. He's not advocating for personal suffering abolishment alone but total and universal abolishment for all sentient beings.

White oak shim wouldn't compress nearly enough to make a problematic difference.

Why would it be impossible? It resides in itself, the same as any view. All the information of the universe must be unified on some level (to interact and have causal influence on the rest). A god's eye view would be this unified whole (all information). I assume you're thinking, there is a universe, and then God is something "looking at it" and must then represent that information in a separate mind, but really, the universe *is* the mind of God, they're not separate.

Well, a God's eye-view is still necessarily possible. Just because your mind wants a single, stable version of events doesn't mean it's a necessary condition for God's understanding.