 I've heard you speak very derisively in the past about Immanuel Kant, and I am no Kantian either, but I'm curious as to why you oppose Kant in broad terms, perhaps, because that could open a very, take us down a very dense philosophical path, I'm sure. Yes, and I'm not a philosopher, so I better do it in broad terms because I probably cannot hold my own on the details to the philosophers within Objectivism. Look, I mean Kant does two things that are antagonistic to Objectivism, but to human life in my view, antagonistic to all human life and to human progress. He divorces human reason from reality, and I don't know how you overcome that, right? If reason is not a guide, is not an identification of reality, then what's the use of it? And what benefit does it provide, and whose reason is true, and how do we tell, and how do we figure out what's right and what's wrong, and what's true and what's false? Isn't this just opening up completely to Objectivism, which I think opens everything up to what his real argument was, to religion? Because at the end of the day, I mean he says this, right, his philosophy is there to save religion from the Enlightenment. He's there to ultimately save Christianity, and that's his goal. And to do that, he has to show that reason is impotent. So he doesn't actually say reason is impotent because then he wouldn't have been taken seriously. He disguises the idea of reason as an impotent with a bunch of philosophical gobbledygook. I mean, very sophisticated argument that are very difficult to comprehend, right? I mean if you read Kant, man, it's the hardest thing you'll ever read, and long sentences, very convoluted, very difficult to understand, very difficult to figure out. But at the end of the day, the aim of all of it is to tell us reason is not your senses, and your reason, your mind, is not telling you what's really out there in existence. Now that opens up the whole to, well, then if it doesn't, then how do I know what's right, what's wrong, what's true, what's false, what existence really is? And if it's just guided by the structures of my brain or what, if my brain is structured differently than yours, and the white people have brains differently structured than black people, and the women have brains differently structured than men, you know, is there a female truth, and a male truth, and a black truth, and a white truth? And you can see how that, and by the way, Marx, if you go to Marx, is there a polytherian truth and a bourgeoisie truth? If you go to Hitler, is there an Aryan truth and a Jewish truth? And it devolves from there. And I think at the end of the day, Marx is a product of Kant. And I think, you know, the ideology that drives ultimately to Hitler is a product of Kant. It's all a product, and the postmodernist ultimately a product of Kant, because once you get rid of reason, which I think is what he ultimately does, anything is possible, right? Anything is possible, including contradictions, which is what Hegel celebrates, right? You know, and how Hegel is influenced by Kant as well. And that's it. So that's an epistemological point. But then there's the ethical point. And the ethical point is, again, he's trying to save Christianity from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is starting to recognize the value of the individual, and starting to recognize the value of human happiness. After all, you know, in the political manifestation of the Enlightenment, which is the Declaration of Independence in the US, you have a right and inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Now, that's selfish. That's individualistic. My happiness, not your happiness, my right is to pursue my happiness, right? And that is not tenable to Christianity and not tenable for Kant. So he comes up with a morality, again, that hides it all, because he hides his true motivation, because he talks about individuals and imports of individuals. So he comes across as a pseudo individualist. But at the end of the day, what are you supposed to do? What is morality about? What it's about following categorical imperatives? Commandments? Because where do the categorical imperatives come from? You know, they're just there. But how come we disagree about them? Well, then somebody has to provide them for us. God, maybe, or maybe Marx, or maybe Hitler, or maybe somebody else. But somebody has to provide us with what's good and what's evil. What should I do and what shouldn't I do? And then he says, once you know what good is, you just have to do it. It's duty. It's duty bound. And you should never think about the benefit you receive from doing it. You should do it for this, because it's a categorical imperative. You have no choice. That's what you should do. That's what morality means. So he sets it up so that my own interests are opposed. If they are opposed to the categorical imperative, I must put aside my own interests. If something will lead to my happiness, I should be suspicious of it, because then I'm introducing a new motivation, which is not a categorical imperative, my happiness. And I should put that aside in order to follow the duty. Now, any kind of duty ethics is a dangerous thing. It's a dangerous thing. And again, it can be corrupted and can be taken over and can be used in a variety of different things, so in a variety of different ways. But at the end, what is he trying to save? He's trying to save Christianity and all duty ethics is a commandment's ethics, right? Thou shall not fill in the bank, and that is not ethics. Ethics is about choices. Ethics is about free will. And ethics should be about the pursuit of your own values, the pursuit of your own happiness. So whether something causes me happiness or not is a prime consideration, ethical consideration, in whether I do something or not. Now, I need to understand why it causes me happiness, because you don't want to justify any subjective thing. But if it rationally, if it logically, if it makes sense that it causes me happiness, not in some deviant way, then that is the essence of ethics, rational values. And he negates that. He completely eradicates that. So he and both in ethics and in epistemology is the enemy of anything objective. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life, and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who like it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a, a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and, and show your support for all, for, for, for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And, and of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up, you'll know what shows are on, when they're on, you'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.