I realize that if learning and understanding Torah is not a goal to someone, then the idea of Rav Nahman of saying the words and going on will not amount to much--or to anything. One has to have had the will and desire to learn Torah, first in order for this to matter.

And that goal I can not relate well to people. The best I have been able to come up with is the Kant Friesian approach of Dr. Kelley Ross, about the importance of knowledge that we know, but not by the senses nor by reason. But even though this kind of knowledge is close to faith, it is not the same.

It was more or less invented to bypass problems that Kant never solved about how we know the categories. [Kant has a list. That is his own list but more or less it is like quantity, quality space time causality which are closely related to Aristotle's ten categories   ] [Kant's argument is surprisingly unconvincing..] ]

And this school of thought has had an odd sort of history. starting with Fries. That ended soon. Then Fischer sunk the last nail into it. Then Leonard Nelson revived it, while against Relativity. That was corrected by Gretta Hermann who was great in many ways, but was not going with Nelson on major points. And I have a tremendous respect for this school of thought, but I just can not agree with the total dismissal of Hegel that is a fundamental axiom. To me it seems that Hegel is simply dealing with different issues.