Dear Professor Michael Huemer,
I have been reading you writings for a few years and i want to thank you for making public your ideas. I find your writing to be very impressive. My question for you is what do you think about the Kant-Fries school of Professor Kelley Ross. I know you have a some major critique on Kant's "thing in itself," but it seems to me that your thought on this issue runs parallel to the Kant-Fries school.
Your critique of Kant is something that the scholars from that school also deal with.
In fact, the one major difference that you seem to have with that school is that they believe in immediate nonintuitive knowledge, while you don't believe in any such knowledge. It seems to me that you believe that reason itself has the ability to perceive universals--but no universals are inherently known.
I also wonder what he thinks of Princeton school of philosophy. They seem to be doing some good work--but i did not include it in my letter.
The answer: "Thanks for your message. I have not studied the Kant-Fries school and thus have nothing useful to say about it.
I am not sure what you mean by "inherently known". Perhaps you are referring to innate ideas. In that case, I don't know whether there are innate ideas. That seems to be more a matter for cognitive psychologists than for philosophers to investigate.
I am also unsure what you have in mind by "immediate non-intuitive knowledge".
Sorry not to be of more help.
--
Prof. Michael Huemer"
Afterword: The school of thought of Michael Huemer begins with Prichard, and is called the "Intuitionists."
I have been reading you writings for a few years and i want to thank you for making public your ideas. I find your writing to be very impressive. My question for you is what do you think about the Kant-Fries school of Professor Kelley Ross. I know you have a some major critique on Kant's "thing in itself," but it seems to me that your thought on this issue runs parallel to the Kant-Fries school.
Your critique of Kant is something that the scholars from that school also deal with.
In fact, the one major difference that you seem to have with that school is that they believe in immediate nonintuitive knowledge, while you don't believe in any such knowledge. It seems to me that you believe that reason itself has the ability to perceive universals--but no universals are inherently known.
I also wonder what he thinks of Princeton school of philosophy. They seem to be doing some good work--but i did not include it in my letter.
The answer: "Thanks for your message. I have not studied the Kant-Fries school and thus have nothing useful to say about it.
I am not sure what you mean by "inherently known". Perhaps you are referring to innate ideas. In that case, I don't know whether there are innate ideas. That seems to be more a matter for cognitive psychologists than for philosophers to investigate.
I am also unsure what you have in mind by "immediate non-intuitive knowledge".
Sorry not to be of more help.
--
Prof. Michael Huemer"
Afterword: The school of thought of Michael Huemer begins with Prichard, and is called the "Intuitionists."
