Kant is in need of modification. That can be like Kelley Ross or Michael Huemer. i.e. the Friesian school [Jacob Fries, Leonard Nelson] or the intuitionists [Prichard]. You have to start with the realization that Kant was too much influenced by David Hume. Hume limited the scope of reason way too much. He was a teacher of Euclidian geometry and so though that reason can only see contradictions where they exist. He repeats this claim many times without a shred of evidence or proof. Kant accepted this. But reason has another function. It perceives universals. They are qualities that things have in common like trees. the universals that i refer to here are the very things that Kelley Ross calls ''forms'' in his distinction between content and form. That makes up his theory of value where some things like pure mathematical logic are pure form with sentences A and B that have no content but can stand for anything. Then you have math which has more content but less form since it can not be reduced to pure logic are Godel showed us. Then you have music and art which have more content but even less form until you get to God who has no form at all but is pure content. But these areas of perception are what Michael Huemer would bring into the category of area where things are partly known by reason--or being reasonable and empirical perception.
Robert Hanna has pointed out the poverty of modern philosophy and the way forward to Kant, -but that still leaves the problems inherent in Kant. Thus one needs either the Friesian School or the Intuitionists.
