The best of the philosophers nowadays seem unified that there is a need to go forward to Kant and get out of the insane philosophies of the twentieth century.

Certainly you see this with Kelley Ross [of the Kant Fries School of thought.] But he is clearly thinking only of one possible approach to Kant--that of Leonard Nelson.

Also with Robert Hanna you see this same approach of the need to get back to Kant.

However among the best is Huemer and he seems to be with the Analytic school and specifically G.E. Moore [the Intuitionists.]

So what can you do? I do not feel like discounting completely all the other approaches to Kant. [Marburg, Heidelberg, Gottingen]. I can not even figure out if all of these great people are simply talking past each other. The same points get addressed in only slightly different ways.

And for some reason, they do not seem that interested in Hegel. [Though there is a great spokesman for Hegel, McTaggart] [I also do not feel like discounting Hegel just because he was misused by the Communists.] [Not everyone is happy with McTaggart. They say he provided a good target for those that wanted to attack Hegel. Still he seems like the best defense. Besides that not everything was wrong.]


But of all of these, only Robert Hanna made a detailed study of the shaky foundations of all so called Analytic philosophy of the 20th century.

[As R Hanna noted that not only did it all start out with shaky foundations, but became downright insane after Quine. And then after a good number of people showed Quine to be completely absurd still that made not the slightest dent.]

You can see why people like Ed Feser just want to go back to Medieval Philosophy. But I can not see that because the difficulties there are real--as even Thomas Reid pointed out. No matter how absurd you think Berkeley's idealism is, you still need some way of answering him. And only Kant did that.
[And maybe Hegel also.]