Kant redefined reason to be a system of rules. But to my opinion, it is a bridge between Mind and Objective Reality

Because of Hume, Kant redefined reason to be a system of rules. This came the fact that Hume was teaching Euclid. There reason is to build on axioms, and only when a contradiction between a deduction and an axiom comes about then reason says one rejects the deduction. So, to Hume reason has one function alone-to perceive contradictions. Not to bridge between the mind and reality. The problem with this is that Hume states his point as a given fact without ever proving it or even giving any arguments for it. Kant disagreed with this a and said reason has another function that through its software to perceive reality, i.e., through the principles of logic to perceive reality. That is reason is a system of rules by which reality can be perceived. the problem is that this still builds of Hume’s fallacy. Reason in my opinion goes beyond that. To Michael Huemer it perceives universals. But to my opinion it goes beyond that. It is a bridge between Mind and Objective Reality.[However, there is a difference between the function of reason recognizing contradictions and universals and objective reality. This is still not to deny the importance of Kant and Leonard Nelson who recognize these differences.]][You do not need to prove that there is reality, or that reason sees reality directly. If you do not belive in reality, then you need to bring proof, and there is no proof that could satisfy the conditions needed for such a proof.]See this from Dr. Bryan Caplan (Economics) and similar ideas from Dr. Michael Huemer (Philosophy--University of Colorado). I would like to add a further note: I have noticed that there is a close similarity between H.A. Prichard and Jacob Fries, in one respect, but quite different in others. The similarity is what Fries calls immediate non intuitive knowledge. Prichard also has something similar; --he says moral knowledge is inherent, not derived from anything, and not known by reason, nor by empirical evidence. In fact, that was his disagreement with G.E. Moore who held moral knowledge can be known by reason. But the differences are in the nature of reason. To Prichard, knowledge has to be of entities independent of the mind. [I.e., to Prichard, knowledge is of things in themselves. To Kant, knowledge is only of phenomena.] There is away to defend Kant concerning the nature of knowledge based on an idea from the intuitionists. Seeing empirical reality is not knowledge. Seeing anything is not knowledge. So no matter what you see, you have to process it and synthesise it into knowledge. A Possible objection to the Kantian approach to knowledge is that the mind must know something that is not the mind itself. The arrow goes from the mind to outside the mind. Only then can the mind reverse direction and go back to know its own properties. To self knowledge is not direct, rather it comes only as a second step. Therefore, knowledge must be of things independent of the mind.