 Talking about a philosophy that's contrary to Rand's, you mentioned Rand considered Kant's philosophy evil, but not a lot of people understand why and that might be something that interests the Anne Rand enthusiasts listening. Sure, I mean I think the two primary ways she thinks this philosophy is wrong and then I'll get to why she thought it was evil, and why she thought he was evil, not just the ideas. One is that Kant rejects the idea of the pursuit of happiness. He rejects the idea that the purpose of morality is the pursuit of happiness on the contrary. He is very suspicious of happiness because happiness is probably a sign of self-interest and he rejects self-interest as immorality completely. Your purpose again morally is to be selfless or to be guided by certain categorical imperatives that somehow are in your mind and in that sense he's a bit of a mystic. They're somehow encoded in your mind and you know what they are. I often wonder what, you know, rapists and murderers why they didn't get the categorical imperatives. But you know, you're supposed to find them and you're supposed to execute out there. But they're all focused again on other people. They're all focused on serving others, not. And again, if you think of yourself in that context then it doesn't count as morality. It has to be selfless. So he rejects one of the great achievements of the Enlightenment which is the pursuit of happiness. But more fundamentally what he rejects is the idea that reason actually gives us information about reality as it is. And he says the fact that we have senses and the fact that we have a mind actually creates a barrier between what we have as what we think reality is and what we reality is. Real reality is unknowable because you have to use senses to discover it and since that sense is distorted then it's actually unknowable to the human mind. Now that sets us back 150 years philosophically because again the achievement of the Enlightenment, the achievement of the scientific revolution is to say no, our senses give us valid information about the world. No, our reason makes it possible for us to understand the world, to understand the physical world. This is how we can build these inventions. This is how we can do the equations that actually work in explaining the movement of objects. This is how we can do biology and chemistry and all these things that are just coming out in the 18th and 19th century. And Kant says well not really. That's all we've convinced ourselves in a sense that that's what's real reality out there. But it's not. It's just inside our head. And that ultimately leads to disastrous philosophical consequences from Hegel to Schopenhauer to Marx to Nietzsche and ultimately to postmodernism today. Every aspect of that is ultimately can be shown as its core in Kant's philosophy. And the reason she thought he was evil is she believed he knew what he was doing. And in the critique of pure reason in the introduction he says something like, I'm writing this book in order to save faith from reason. Right, okay. So she believed that he knew what he was doing, that he was purposefully undermining and undercutting the great achievements of the Enlightenment. He was undercutting reason and he was undercutting individual happiness. And to do that, and to be conscious of that, to basically drive humanity towards a philosophy that ultimately belongs in the Middle Ages and the Dark Ages. A philosophy that ultimately has to rely on faith in one way or the other. And on altruism, on sacrifice to others which ultimately leads to collectivism, you know, she thought that was the ultimate evil. And if there's a book by Lenny Pieckhoff that I highly recommend called The Ominous Parallels, we actually draws out the consequence of Kantian philosophy through the ages and shows its link both to communism and fascism. And how these are basically the unavoidable consequences of Kantian philosophy. And if that's the case, if that's true, then I can't think of ideologies that have killed more people than communism and fascism. How does objectivism differ from the philosophies that many of us have been exposed to in our youths, philosophies based upon religions, theologians, dogmatists? The 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. 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 to go to www.uranbrookshow.com, or go to www.subscribestar.com, and make a monthly contribution to keep this going.