what made me interested Fries and non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith] is the site of Dr Kelley Ross [https://www.friesian.com/]. Dr Ross is also going with Leonard Nelson. But I wonder if the gap between Hegel and Fries is so great as to be unbridgeable. I wonder about that because I read some of McTaggart and he answers some of the questions on Hegel in such away that makes me think maybe the gap is no so great. Besides that there are some aspects of the Fries approach which leave me wondering. After all I see the electron does not care if one thinks of it as a wave or particle. If there are two slits, it decides to be a wave. If there is one slit, it decides to be a particle. It does not care about us observers.
Besides that, as Michael Huemer pointed out, it does not make sense to say that implanted knowledge is knowledge. If it is implanted, it makes no sense to say that it should have anything to do with reality.
So all that leaves me wondering if some synthesis is possible.
What I tend to is the idea that Hegel is right about the metaphysics. The three part structure of reality. And the way to get to understanding is by dialectical process. That takes the place of experiment. Similar to what Kant thought he was doing with the antimonies.
But when it comes to how we know things it seems that Leonard Nelson was right that you need a starting point. Non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith].
[A lot of work was done on Kant after 1781. Then Hegel came along and that also produced a lot of commentary. Then you have the "Analytic" schools starting in some way from Frege. But the "intuitionists". G.E. Moore and Prichard seem the best. But there is something a bit odd. Each one of these schools seems to have some amazingly great points, but at the same time something slightly hard to swallow. So you can see why all that leaves me wondering. As for the present day it looks to me that the Friesian school is the best based on Fries and Leonard Nelson. But that does not seem to cancel, out the good points of G.E. Moore or Hegel.
[When I say there is something odd about "philosophers-" nowadays you probably know l what I mean. As Sandra Lehman once told me, "There is something about philosophy that seem to detract from common sense." At least the Kant Fries school of thought seems immune to this kind of problem. In fact, Kelley Ross has a whole essay seeing if perhaps Quantum Mechanics can be understood in a Kantian kind of way. That is a lot different from other "philosophers" that criticize physics before understanding it.]
