The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason.

Dr Kelley Ross mentions in his Ph.D. thesis that there is a sort of ambiguity what is it that the categories are meant to unite, just conceptions or also perceptions. A fundamental ambiguity in Kant concerns just what it is that synthesis generates, a structured set of concepts describing the world or our immediate perceptions." If it would be just conceptions then everything would be OK. But how can they unite perceptions? Well Kant notices this problem himself, and claims that because of this problem it must be that perceptions themselves are themselves rational. Structured by reason. [That surely sounds like the exact point of Hegel.] But Dr. Ross takes a different approach and claims that because of this very sort of problem--that sensations and conceptions are so different there must be a deeper source of knowledge that both are just two sides of the same coin. [You can also see this as almost implicit in Kant himself if you think of the categories are being like the computer chips that process the incoming information and signals. Then the natural question to ask is, "Who is the user?" The answer: the soul.] The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason. Kelly Ross has a sort of chart. He shows things of value go up from all form with no content e.g., Logic which is formal in that its forms do not have any content. If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. A, B and C have no content. Then he goes up to an area which can not be reduced to pure logic like Mathematics as we know from Gödel. So, math has more content but less form. numbers have reality. This is the old argument if universals exist. Well, it seems that trees exist. Not the concept of trees but actual trees. Michael Huemer brings some proofs of this. One that I recall off hand is that yellow is a color. Many things have it. So, universals exist. Music and art have more of what is called numinous content. Some sort of value that can not be reduced to a computer program--as we know from the many that have tried to do this with Bach. Values that involve holiness even more so have less form than that, and even more content. If you continue the progression you would get to God who has no form. [I should add that the Kant-Fries school is not "psychologism" as Kelley Ross takes some time and effort to point out.] my feeling about this is that Hegel is right that no part of reality is immune to reason, and yet Leonard Nelson is right that reason even in metaphysics in its second part need axioms to begin with. that is that there is immediate intuitive knowledge about things in themselves---------------------------------------------------אני סבור שקאנט ​​היה מוטרד מה מצב הנפיץ ביותר ששרר בגרמניה בתקופתו. העקרונות המוסריים לא היו ברורים לאיש, אך כל אחד המחזיקים באמונה איתנה שרק דרכו היא הנכונה. הוא ביקש למצוא מענה לשאלה: איך ניתן לקבוע עקרונות מוסריים נכונים, מבלי להזדקק לרגשות? אינני סבור שהגיע לתשובה מספקת, אך מצאתי אצל מיכאל יועּמֶר [מאוניברסיטת קולורדו] תובנה מדהימה בנוגע לבעיה זו. הוא טוען כי ניחַנּוּ גישה התבונה, וכי טבעה של התבונה הוא להבחין במושגים אוניברסליים (כלליים). כשם שהתבונה מזהה מושגים אוניברסליים כפי שהם באים לידי ביטוי במתמטיקה, כך גם בענייני האנושות – התבונה מזהה עקרונות אוניברסליים, שהם עקרונות מוסריים ופוליטיים. לקאנט לא היה מושג זה במדויק; אמנם היה לו מושג על אודות "מושגים", אך הוא לא הבחין בין המושגים אותם התבונה – זו המבצעת הסקות וגוזרת מסקנות מתוך מושגים. עם זאת, גם מיכאל יועּמֶר אינו מבחין בין מושגים אוניברסליים. לדעתי, יש להיעזר כאן ברעיונותיהם של לאונרד נלסון וקלי רוס (מ"אסכולת פריז החדשה"), הגורסים כי התבונה חייבת להתחיל מנקודה כלשהי; אחרת, לא תוכל להתחיל. דרושים לנו אקסיומות (הנחות יסוד). וכדי להשיג אקסיומות, ידע בלתי-אמצעי שאינו מסתמך על אינטואיציה. אך לאחר ביסוס האקסיומות, צריך את התבונה כדי לגזור מהן מסקנות ולמצוא עקרונות מוסריים. בסוף דבר, התבונה אינה מספקת לנו מידע רב בכל הנוגע לפוליטיקה או למוסר. אני סבור שהסיבה לכך היא ששני התחומים האלו משתייכים לקטגוריה של "מטאפיזיקה שנייה", העוסקת במציאות כמכלול, או בזמן המכלול. אנו יכולים לחוות את הזמן, אך לא את הזמן כמכלול; כך גם לגבי ענייני האנושות – לא ניתן לחוות אותם כמכלול. אני, בסוף דבר, רק אחד מני רבים בתוך המין האנושי. לפיכך, גישתה של התבונה אל המוסר או אל הפוליטיקה מוגבלת ביותר. עם זאת, ייתכן שאם מתחילים מאקסיומות ומתקדמים באמצעות תהליך של תזה, אנטי-תזה וסינתזה – ניתן להגיע להישגים אמיתים. I believe that Kant was troubled by the highly volatile situation that prevailed in Germany during his time. Moral principles were unclear to anyone, yet everyone held a firm conviction that their own path was the only correct one. He sought an answer to the question: How can one establish valid moral principles without relying on emotions? I do not believe he arrived at a satisfactory answer, but I found a remarkable insight regarding this problem in the work of Michael Huemer [of the University of Colorado]. He argues that we possess the faculty of reason, and that the nature of reason is to discern universals (general concepts). Just as reason identifies universal concepts as they manifest in mathematics, it likewise identifies universal principles—namely, moral and political principles—within the realm of human affairs. Kant did not possess this precise understanding of Reason; while he certainly had a concept of "concepts," he failed to distinguish between the various types of concepts—specifically, those that reason employs to perform logical inferences and derive conclusions. That said, Michael Huemer himself does not distinguish between different kinds of universal concepts. In my view, it is helpful here to draw upon the ideas of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross (of the "New Friesian School"), who argue that reason must begin from some starting point; otherwise, it cannot begin at all. We require axioms—fundamental premises—which constitute immediate knowledge that does not rely on intuition. Once these axioms are established, reason is then needed to derive conclusions from them and to identify moral principles. Ultimately, however, reason does not provide us with a great deal of information regarding politics or morality. I believe this is because both these fields belong to the category of "second-order metaphysics," which concerns reality as a whole—or time as a whole. While we can experience time, we cannot experience time as a whole; the same applies to human affairs—they cannot be experienced as a totality. After all, I am merely one individual among many within the human species. Consequently, the reach of reason regarding morality or politics is extremely limited.Nevertheless, it is possible that by starting from axioms and proceeding through a process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, one might achieve genuine insights. the idea here is that Michael Huemer and Hegel hold reason has no limit, Kant and Leonard nelson hold it has limits--the second metaphysics. My synthesis of this is that reason can only build on axioms; but axioms can only be perceived by non-intuitive immediate knowledge.