 What do you think were the other unique contributions of Anne Rand to philosophy? Obviously, she was influenced by Aristotle, but she built a lot on her own and said some things that no one else had argued before. I mean, I think she is the most unique philosophical thinker since Aristotle, so I think she's That's a bold assertion. It's a very bold assertion. And I'm not granted, I'm not a philosopher, I'm not an expert in philosophy, so take it with whatever grain of salt you want. But everything I've studied in philosophy, she is unique, she's innovative, she completely, and this is why they hate her, I think, in the philosophy departments, because she completely turns their field upside down and she does it in English, right? Not in this dense philosophical BS kind of language that they use. So I think in epistemology, she is a massive innovative epistemology. If you read a small book, this is just an introduction to objective epistemology, where she has a whole theory of concepts. It's completely original. It's completely new. From everything I can tell, it's true. When I watched my kids form their first concepts like chair, like food, or strawberry, or whatever, you could see them go through the process she's describing. So I think my guess is, if you took child psychologists and they read her epistemology, they would say, yes, that matches their experience of our children form concepts because it matches up. I mean, she's describing the uniquely human process of coming up with concepts. So she has this concept formation, which is probably the most important thing to understand how we form concepts is a building block for everything else, right? This idea of objective and what objective means is unique, new, hugely important in epistemology and what it means to be objective about things. It's not being outside of oneself or what Adam Smith called it, an external observer looking at, no, it's you knowing your values. It's not being behind a veil of ignorance, Rawls is a veil of ignorance, kind of the dumbest thing I've ever heard of philosophically, you know, going outside yourself with no identity and no nature. No, this is given your nature, given your identity, what is a value to you? What is objective? What, you know, so it's identifying the fact that reason is a means of knowing the world. So a theory of concepts, who defensive reason based on their theory of concept to idea of objectivity, all in epistemology or innovations and a moral theory is a complete revolution. It's in a sense similar to Aristotle, but it's much deeper than Aristotle. Now remember, she has 2,000 years of history to learn from, so this is not a slam on Aristotle. Aristotle doesn't have the benefit of Aristotle. Well, he didn't have the benefit of Aristotle or learning the history of 2,000 years or of the industrial revolution. I mean, one of the points that a man makes is she could have never come up with her ethics without having lived and experienced the industrial revolution. That is a knowledge of what the human mind is capable of, the knowledge of what business and production are capable of, shaped her view of ethics. So a whole system of ethics bridging the is-or-t gap that Hume said could never be bridged, right? The idea that you can derive an author and an is that she bridges and then develops an entire ethical system that again is beautifully integrated and solidly, lives on solid foundation is a completely new innovation. And then when you go to capitalism. I mean, she's a massive innovator. You know, libertarians, one of the sad things about libertarianism is they've stolen or taken so much money and ran without giving a credit. Marie Rothbard was the worst when it came to this. A lot of the stuff he takes, including the aggression principle, is right out of I'm in without any of the credit and without explaining her philosophical foundation for why aggression is evil and why aggression is bad. So she actually develops an entire mall system and then builds on it, from it, not on it, from it. A defense of what of the concept individual rights, so she takes Locke's idea of individual rights and now rests it on a proper moral foundation and then defines what kind of government that leads to and says that it has to lead to a government that you cannot have, for example, anarchy, that it must lead to government because you have to have a monopoly over the use of retaliatory force that cannot be epistemological, immoral or in reality cannot be something you compete over. So she develops a whole view of capitalism, which for her time is completely unique, completely new, and I think shapes the entire kind of free market movement from that point onwards. And of course she's reading Mises, so it's not that she invented everything, but certainly when it comes to politics and her understanding of economics, we've got her copy of human action with margin alien notes. She read the road to serfdom with margin alien notes, not very friendly ones. So she read a lot, so she benefited from other thinkers in the free market movement at the time. She was friendly with Mises and Hazlett, but she developed the philosophical foundation to sit on it. You know, I've said this in other events. I think one of the greatest, maybe so many intellectually, the greatest tragedy of the 20th century is that the great thinkers in the liberty movement, the great free market economists, the great free market thinkers didn't take her as seriously as she took them. They didn't take philosophy seriously. So Mises comes up with the prexology to explain everything, but prexology can't explain everything. It's not philosophy. It's a pseudo philosophy. If Mises, I think, had ran a serious philosophy, seriously, as ran took Mises in economics, we would be 50 to 100 years further ahead in our fight for liberty in a capitalist free world. And the fact that they rejected her and they rejected her ideas, they rejected her philosophy didn't take it seriously. You didn't engage with it. They just said, ah, we like that a little short, but we don't, you know, the ideas, we don't want it. That I think is retarded the liberty movement for generations. How does objectivism differ from the philosophies that many of us have been exposed to in our youths, philosophies based upon religions, theologians, dogmatists? Very first difference. Objectivism tells you that it is not right. It is not proper to men to take anything on faith. Religion is a matter of faith. You accept a religion emotionally or because you were born to it. You have not chosen it rationally. What objectivism will tell you is that reason, man's reason is his basic means of survival. That is the most important faculty which he has and he has to guide his life and make his choices by means of his rational faculty. He has to make his own choices, but he has to know how to make them. It is immoral for him to act on his emotions, to be guided by the whim of the moment. That objectivism holds as very wrong, very immoral. And morality in fact consists of following your reason to the best of your ability so that rationality is the basic virtue from which all the others proceed. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...