I found the contribution of Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian School to be quite amazing. The major points are immediate non intuitive knowledge and a polynomic theory of value. The reason this helps is that there seems to be areas of value that are not reducible to true of false. Sometimes the question is J.S. Bach as opposed to noise. And even in areas of true of false you have to start with axioms that are immediately clear-but can not be reduced to prior axioms.
Still the argument of this side of Kant with Hegel seems a bit a bit overdone. There seems to be a lot more in common between Hegel and Leonard Nelson than there are differences.
In any case, what is important about Kelley Ross is that in his system there is this kind of knowledge that would be called faith. But then comes the question how to distinguish between true faith and false?
My feeling about this is that any bit of true knowledge has to come from a component of immediate non intuitive knowledge and also a component of pure reason. But that does not make it infallible. If Empirical evidence goes against it, it has to be modified of maybe even thrown out.
Still the argument of this side of Kant with Hegel seems a bit a bit overdone. There seems to be a lot more in common between Hegel and Leonard Nelson than there are differences.
In any case, what is important about Kelley Ross is that in his system there is this kind of knowledge that would be called faith. But then comes the question how to distinguish between true faith and false?
My feeling about this is that any bit of true knowledge has to come from a component of immediate non intuitive knowledge and also a component of pure reason. But that does not make it infallible. If Empirical evidence goes against it, it has to be modified of maybe even thrown out.
