Michael_R

Maison Ikkoku is an absolutely wonderful love story. And on that note, I can say with all honesty that the heroine Kyoko Otonashi is one of the most positively heroic women to ever come out of the anime world. It's truly elating to see Kyoko live her life the way she is happy living it when all of society disapproves of her independence and integrity - she doesn't give in, and this is what makes her admirable. Ranma 1/2 is a hilarious, memorable action-comedy that I adore. I've seen a large variety of anime, but I only really have a serious liking of the stuff by Rumiko Takahashi. She is very honest with her own work. She also wrote the only horror manga series that I enjoy, "Mermaid Saga."

Some forms of determinism are easier to argue than others; block determinism, however, can't be settled either way because of the contradicting views of reality. Block determinism states = your actions are merely a culmination of all the aspects of reality, cognitive, environmental, biological, etc. So they assert that men act not because of mere free will, but because all of the conditions of their reality, both physical and cognitive, combine to one action at that time, and the line continues. You can't win an argument over that kind of logic: people who do not have the same basic conceptions of reality cannot argue on equal footing.

Oh, I didn't mean in terms of others. I meant in terms of myself.

Well, I've always believed true happiness couldn't be attained without leading a moral, healthy lifestyle where you strive to achieve your bliss, without sacrificing those ambitions for anything else. Happiness and pleasure are significantly different. So I do see it as the meaning, but I obviously have the sense to understand that it can only be achieved by the honest, productive life.

I see no reason for converting to a philosophy if it doesn't make you happy: happiness is the one true meaning of the human life.

Anyone who is preoccupied with the notion of whether they deserve to be labeled an 'objectivist' or not has dishonest intentions. If you are an 'objectivist,' then it will show in your actions - thus, anyone who is interested in objectivism for their own rational self-interest will not care if they are regarded as objectivists or not, because they already know what they are, according to the law of identity. When one worries about labels as applied to themselves, they are being selfless in their thinking. Labels as applied to ourselves never have their origin in self-interest, for exactly the same reason fools only act like clowns in front of others: people tend to wear their labels like jewelry, but that is the key indicator that they are not serious about their values. And as for the views on women, homosexuality, smoking, etc., they are not a part of her philosophy - they are opinions that she believes to be justifying rationally, but they are opinions nonetheless, and to follow the philosophy correctly and honestly does not involve agreeing with every damned opinion she holds. Objectivism supports free, independent thought, so holding that one must not disagree with any of Ayn Rand's 'opinions' is in itself contradictory to her philosophy of the mind. That is not being a rational, independent thinker, that is the exact opposite, using the mind of another as a substitute for your own. Objectivism is a guide by which one lives a moral, rational existence - that is all: a GUIDE. And yet I'm seeing 'noted Objectivists' passing off Objectivism as a sort of religious dogma, complete with a Holy Order, a Holy Leader (in this case, Peikoff), ex-communications, et cetera.