https://www.friesian.com/ross/#curse
The curse of the Friesian school: "Nevertheless, I have not met a single contemporary academic colleague whop was the least interested in the Friesian School, or my work, or who, upon acquaintance, barely took the trouble to give me the time of day. If that."
I am on board with Leonard Nelson of the Kant-Fries school. Faith there is contained in an area of knowledge which is known, but not by sensory perception nor by reason.
So this seems to strike the right balance between Enlightenment Reason and Faith. Kant had tried the same balance but his solution seems a bit lacking.
So reason applies to experience.. Beyond that there is a kind of non intuitive immediate knowledge. [Hegel also tried to find this same kind of balance, but the Leonard Nelson Kelley Ross seems a bit better to me.]
Someone asked me then how do we know natural law?
I answered: "I guess you must mean Natural law known by reason. But reason might have limits. That was the point of Hume. The point was weak in one way in that he never showed the limits of reason. [And so you get G.E Moore and Dr Huemer because of that.] But still it does seem clear that knowing things true by definition is different [analytic a priori ] than knowing things you have to put together [synthetic a priori] . And even in that area of things you need to put together it seems there is a kind of limit about things that you can sense, [conditions of possible experience]. Once you get into moral law it does look that a different kind of knowledge is used to understand things.[un-condioned realities]"
[The well known proponent of Kant-Fries is Kelley Ross, but Robert Hanna goes into more detail in showing the attacks against Kant in the "Analytic school" are wrong. Dr. Ross does bring Jerold Katz, but Robert Hanna goes into much more detail.]
Georg Hamann was I think the best of those pointing out flaws in the Enlightenment, Still I think a balance is the best. Kind of like the mediaeval synthesis of faith and reason.
