With John Locke things have primary qualities and secondary qualities

 With John Locke things have primary qualities and secondary qualities. Primary means in themselves. Secondary is things that they have only because of our sensing them. [Like it feels hard and cold.] Kant noticed all qualities are secondary. Everything you know about a thing are things you know in relation to yourself. So what is left? The thing in itself.  That is like the old difference between form and content. The thing is the content and the form is your categories that you put it into. [The categories are like computer chips that process the information.] But "It exists" or "It does not exist" are also a priori forms . So we add that also? Then the thing in itself maybe is just not there? 

With Fries immediate non intuitive knowledge is how content is known. So this sort of knowledge does answer that question and many more.

With Hegel, the Logos [in Neo Platonic philosophy] is the source of everything. Not just the logical forms, but even beings. So our minds (which are small parts of the Logos) perceive immediately the categories.

And with Hegel just pure reason can know things. [So that is very close to Fries -- as far as I can see,-we know the thing in itself by reason to Hegel, and by a sort of knowledge that is not reason to Fries.]  

So what I getting at? It is that I think both Fries and Hegel are important. [But I should add that both are in some need for sieving. There are  along the way lots of places that can cause misunderstanding. And when I say Fries I really mean how that approach was developed by Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross. When I say Hegel while I think it is fairly plain and simple, but I can see that McTaggart and Cunningham added clarity where before there had been misunderstanding. 

In any case, I see "Back to Kant" straight just means the old problems cropping up again as was noticed immediately after the Critique was published

The Continental Schools give upon talking exactly in order to say something relevant about one's inner mental states. But can say nothing true about the external world.

I suggest that to see what it is about the Kant Friesian School that is so great  it is helpful to compare it to Husserl. With Husserl we see he was trying to put a person into a sieve. That is to sieve out all the predicates that do not belong to a man per se. By that he hoped to find he essential mental states that make a man into a man and thus to create his method of Phenomenology. And thus comes to true and sure knowledge. [A very ambitious project, which is highly circular.] 

To see and understand just what he was up to helps to see the advantage of Leonard Nelson. who realized that knowledge has to start with axioms. Not mental states. The is the regress of reasons. You have got to start somewhere. And that somewhere can not be just mental because that says nothing.(Nothing by itself.) And that somewhere can not by the senses because they also say nothing at all. But you can not put these two together to make something sure and certain because then all you have got is nothing plus nothing. You have got to start with Immediate non intuitive knowledge.

I hope that is clear enough. And I admit I am on the side of Nelson for a another reason. That is the Nelson Affair file in the drawer of David Hilbert.

But here I also wanted to add another point which I believe is very important. There is something about the Leonard Nelson School [Kant-Fries] that deals with the very areas where the Continental and English Schools [Analytic] fail. The English Schools start with the external world and insist on talking exactly. Well they talk exactly but can say nothing coherent about the Inner World. {My mind is not just a jumble of sensations. I have got this news to report to them.} The Continental Schools give upon talking exactly in order to say something relevant about one's inner mental states. But can say nothing true about the external world.  

So you can see what it is about Leonard Nelson that gets both right and once you get into it, it is impossible not to be impressed. [See the web site of Dr Kelley Ross.]

music z40

 z40 G Minor  same piece in nwc

getting a salary for learning Torah or even judges does not work

 If only all yeshivot would be on the level of Ponovitch or Brisk [the Ivy league].where Torah is learned for its own sake. But outside of the few great Litvak yeshivot, most people use Torah to make money. And I mean this in the widest possible extent. I mean even judges. "A judge that takes a salary for judging all his judgments are null and void." שבר בטלה [payment for taking time out of his regular job,] does not count because it has to be שדר הניכר [Visible salary]. He can not say "I could have been an astronaut, but instead I learn Torah So I should get the salary of an astronaut.] [I have heard a person in kollel actually tell me as much.] 

{The idea of שכר בטלה [payment for taking time out of his regular job,] is this. A judge can judge a case for free. And if he receives money for judging it, the verdict is null--and he pays from his own pocket. But if he has a regular job and two people want him to take out time to judge their case they can pay him שכר הניכר [Visible salary]. That is if he gets 10 dollars an hour on his regular job then he can be paid 10 dollars an hour for judging that case. But it has to be  areal job. Not a job that he thinks he could have had.

So using this idea to answer for people getting a salary for learning Torah or even judges does not work.

To object to wrong actions is important as we see in the Concubine of Give where the whole tribe of Binyamin was punished because they did not object and also the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtz in Gitin

In Torah midot tovot good character is the main thing. This You can see in the books of Musar which brings many proofs for this fact. [Midot Tovot good character means to be a kind decent human being.]  And so it seems that at all clear that the religious world as a whole is really keeping Torah. They surely keep rituals. Bur who says that that is the main thing? When in need you are more likely to get help from secular Jews or gentiles rather than the religious to whom you are barely human .

You might see propaganda trying to show how the religious are all so lovey dovey. But that is just propaganda. The reality is the opposite.

[The shock of this realization can be a heart breaking and traumatic event. When one realizes that  his or her's minds was being played with. 

[Some of the places where you can see the prime directive of good character is in the classical books of Musar of the Middle Ages אורחות צדיקים, שערי תשובה, חובות הלבבות, מעלות המידות, ספר הישר המיוחס לרבינו תם,

Sadly they get away with this fraud because no one objects. And I believe that in such a case one is obligated to object. To object to wrong actions is important as we see in the Concubine of Give where the whole tribe of Binyamin was punished because they did not object and also the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtz in Gitin

 Honor of ones parents means to walk in their ways and to obey them as Confucius saw clearly. How could one possibly think  that he is honoring his (or her) parents while not listening to them? And what I must add is important about this? It is that ones inner light comes from the mother and the outer protective light comes from the father. [As you can see in the Rav Isaac Luria in the Gate of Gilgulim (I think that is where I recall this from)]. So you might be more aware of your connection with your mother since that is inside of you and less aware of your connection with your father. After all the later only surrounds you as a sort of protective cover. [The connection with one's father only becomes apparent after he is not in this world any more. That is when the protective cover disappears.]

Thus, I see this emphasis on finding what is wrong in one's parents in the West as a sort of evil inclination. One of the obstacles one must face in order to find the way to do what is right.

 Religious leaders always emphasize how they know more than your parents. That is one reason why Rav Nahman said most religious leaders are "תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים"(Torah scholars that are demons).

 I was in the Breslov place nearby today and that is why I was listening as they were learning the LeM  vol II perek 7. The interesting thing is that Rav Nahman holds that by saying the words that one is learning the learning enters the mind.

But this saying of the words does not have to be aloud. It can also be in a whisper. But the words need to be said. If I had known this in high school I might have gone into physics or math. After all this method of saying the words and going on would have helped me enormously. But I was not aware of this method at that time.