One reason to go with the Friesian school is this: imagine you are in an algebra class in high school. There is a problem on the blackboard that you are sure you have the right answer to. But right before you raise your arm to get called on, the smartest kid in the class gets called on before you, and gives a different answer. And then the teacher calls on you to give your answer. Are you so sure now? You might be a little hesitant to offer your answer. ["The dog ate my homework."] After all that smart kid so far has gotten straight A's on every algebra test,
This is somewhat parallel. You might think Hegel the right answer. But Karl Gauss [the smart kid in the class ] raises his hand and says "Jacob Fries is the right approach." Then a hundred years goes by and the same question comes up. You think Husserl or Marx is the right answer. Then again the smartest kid in the class, David Hilbert, again raises his hand and says ''Leonard Nelson --the founder of the Neo Friesian school has the right approach. so why are the smart kids ignored in academia,--Gauss and David Hilbert? It must be that there is something wrong with academia
[ Nelson has still not been translated to English, but as an intro to his thought you might learn Plato and Kant. ]
I found out about Nelson on the web site of Kelley Ross when I was looking up Spinoza and saw the amazing analysis on Spinoza there. [At the time I had some questions on Spinoza, and had also seen Leibniz's critique on Spinoza]. One question of my own was this. "Geometry or any exact science does not start with far fetched axioms. Take an example geometry. One axion is this: the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Almost too obvious to be stated. To start with 'There only one substance in the universe' (as Spinoza does) sounds like something that needs to be proved, not taken a an axiom. "
