Looking at the A and B deduction of KANT- I wonder '' Is this like Hegel?" I mean to say that to receive information from the objective world we need to be a unified subject. [Three people each one thinking one word ''I'', the other thinking ''like'', and the next thinking ''pizza'' does not contain any information. But along with this insight, Kant adds that the objective world itself has to be able to be understood by rules--i.e. by reason. Is that not the same thing as saying reason penetrates and permeates and objectifies the external world.]  

I am not negative towards Hegel, BUT I am upset about how much he is misused. And is also feel that he did miss some important insight of Jacob Fries concerning immediate knowledge--. but as the objection of Michael Huemer, ''Why should we think implanted knowledge has any validity what- so- ever?'' I can answer we can know by the idea of Karl Popper--falsifiability. And, in fact, that is exactly how we got to know that space is not rigid Euclidian. Dr. Kelley Ross has gone into the importance of Popper for the NEW Friesian School. Without the insights of Popper and Kelley Ross, it is hard to hold up the new Friesian School. [To me it is clear that the Friesian  School can not stand without Kelley Ross. Even the brilliant and insightful Leonard Nelson did not accept General Relativity even after it was proven all because it was not in line with Kant's idea that space and have to be immutable hardware in us for with that, no knowledge of the external world is possible. [See deduction B in the Critique.] 

The philosophical; movement back to Kant-has support from Carl Jung who held all philosophy after Kant was garbage. [Referring mainly to the Continental stuff. I am not sure what his take on Frege and Russel or Prichard might have been.] Certainly we know he was highly impressed by Jacob Fries