https://friesian.com/sunwall2.htm Even though Mark Sunwall shows that Ayn Rand had a good point in her knocking of Kant, I still see the importance of his approach if you combine that approach with the Friesian idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge. Faith and reason are the key to a healthy and wholesome person. But faith alone goes off into insanity, and reason alone goes off into emptiness. While this third source of knowledge is not the same as faith, but it does provide a basis for it as Otto and Kelley Ross have pointed out.
We sadlly live in an age of deep ignorance and darkness. This is not from a lack of ideas, but rather the ideas of madmen have taken over. [religious madmen and secular madmen and fem-nazis ] The internet can be one hand a great help in finding good info, but also helps silence dissidents. So in academic philosophy you will find tons of sophisticated sounding garbage but no mention of the Friesian school.
I have been aware for some time about the problems that Kant came to answer. But his answers were not satisfying to anyone. Ayn Rand was right that human created morality is not any more satisfying that human created physics. Either physics is true objectively without any reference to who is looking at it or it is not true at all. And the same with moral principles. The three answers to this that I have found compatible and acceptable are Fries, Hegel, Michael Huemer. All three accept that reason recognizes universal principles including the principles of moral truths. However Fries does not call this faculty that knows the axioms of universals "Reason" but the effect is the same. Huemer is the most clear, but tends to ignore the problems that Kant was addressing. Hegel is on board with the idea that reason recognizes universals. The dialectic does not go with empirical knowledge correcting reason, but with reason correcting reason-and that seems weak, Hegel does not want any part of the Universe to be immune from Reason--that is why he is using his approach. I can see his point, but in fact human knowledge progresses only by reason's theories and empirical facts to test those theories.
The critics of Kant were sometimes people that agreed with his desire to find a solution to what amounted to the mind body problem and others who were anti enlightenment like Georg Hamann.
Rav Nahman I think was referring to Kant in a highly negative way. i have thought about that reference for a while and I was never sure whom was referred to but now i think it was probably Kant--even though both Kant and Rav Nahman limited reason. Kant limited it to the phenomenal world. Rav Nahman more or less dismissed reason completely. To Rav Nahman the smarter one is, the more stupid he really is. [Rav Nahman at in LeM I is quite positive about reason, but in LeM II showed its downfall if taken too far. ]
