Dr Michael Huemer has a kind of point that he answered to me long ago about a kind of problem in the Kant Friesian approach of immediate non-intuitive knowledge [i.e. faith.] [note 1] The problem is implanted knowledge. There is no reason to think it is true. So what can you do with that. In my own mind I have thought to answer this by the idea of Hegel of the dialectic. That getting to truth is this process between empirical knowledge and a priori knowledge.
[I mean to say that as Dr Huemer has argued that even the most straight forward empirical knowledge has hidden a priori assumptions. I would say faith has also this aspect. That is the old mediaeval approach of balance faith with reason.]
[In case it is not clear what I am saying it is that moral principles are objective universals. And that Reason's "thing" is to recognize universals. But as Huemer mentions that sometimes even for pure reason to get the concept in the first place requires an empirical element.]
[I am really not able to take any sides here. It seems to me that Hegel, Kelley Ross, and Huemer all have good points. I imagine the Kelley Ross answer to Huemer would be that your prima facie assumption would have have to have a starting point before reason can even start, plus that it can be checked empirically. thus even flat space time which for kant was the start of reason without which reason could not even start, had to be sacrificed to general relativity. this in fact caused the major crisis of the friesian school. but as kelley ross pointed out, it did not have to be so. and here the insights of michael huemer are helpful for if you see your starting principles cause problems, you might as well find other tarting principles--just as Einstein did. [he assumed Maxwell's equations were more fundamental than newton's, so with Einstein the starting principle had to be that the speed of light is constant in all non accelerating frames of reference --as is the case with maxwell ]
[note 1] "Non intuitive" is not sensed by any of the five senses. "Immediate" means not through anything. I.e. no mediate step. That means not derived by some logical deduction. So "immediate non-intuitive" means knowledge that you know not through the sense and not by some logical derivation.
[I mean to say that as Dr Huemer has argued that even the most straight forward empirical knowledge has hidden a priori assumptions. I would say faith has also this aspect. That is the old mediaeval approach of balance faith with reason.]
[In case it is not clear what I am saying it is that moral principles are objective universals. And that Reason's "thing" is to recognize universals. But as Huemer mentions that sometimes even for pure reason to get the concept in the first place requires an empirical element.]
[I am really not able to take any sides here. It seems to me that Hegel, Kelley Ross, and Huemer all have good points. I imagine the Kelley Ross answer to Huemer would be that your prima facie assumption would have have to have a starting point before reason can even start, plus that it can be checked empirically. thus even flat space time which for kant was the start of reason without which reason could not even start, had to be sacrificed to general relativity. this in fact caused the major crisis of the friesian school. but as kelley ross pointed out, it did not have to be so. and here the insights of michael huemer are helpful for if you see your starting principles cause problems, you might as well find other tarting principles--just as Einstein did. [he assumed Maxwell's equations were more fundamental than newton's, so with Einstein the starting principle had to be that the speed of light is constant in all non accelerating frames of reference --as is the case with maxwell ]
[note 1] "Non intuitive" is not sensed by any of the five senses. "Immediate" means not through anything. I.e. no mediate step. That means not derived by some logical deduction. So "immediate non-intuitive" means knowledge that you know not through the sense and not by some logical derivation.
