I have been thinking about philosophy and over time I have seen the wisdom of the Friesian School with some reservation. The reasons for my reservations are that it seems incomplete. It builds on Kant but Fries saw that the categories could not be derived from Aristotelian Logic but rather needed an internal source -not based on what is "out there".Thus came the idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge. But the revival of this school of thought did not fare well when relativity came along and knocked a few black holes in Newtonian Space. So Bernays [a disciple of Leonard Nelson] the founder of the second Friesian School saw that something needed to be corrected. Then came Dr Kelley Ross with his web site advocating for the Friesian approach. There the most important part of that site is the PhD Thesis. He lays out there a modification and development of the Friesian approach.
Philosophy is not absurd even though it tends to lead very smart people into very odd conclusions. It is best to take a limited idea of how far reason can go. Brouwer (the discoverer of the fixed point theorem) after he proved this very important theorem discovered "Philosophy" and decided that "Philosophy" would frown on his proof. [He had been persuaded that anything that can not be measured empirically can not have meaning.] It is amazing what nonsense, smart people can be convinced of.
But the most recent and powerful voice for intuitive non immediate knowledge spends time knocking Hegel from a political point of view. But later Hegel made a lot of sense in his Encyclopedia.
All 20th Century Philosophy is a futile attempt to escape from under the shadow of Kant and Hegel
