Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point. (That reason can be synthetic a priori.) Hegel thought that by a process he called "dialectic" reason could progress beyond areas of possible experience in the dinge an sich. [But his dialectics did not progress as science in which a priori and empirical evidence work together but rather dialectic in finding contractions in the concepts themselves until one gets to the Absolute Idea, the Logos of Middle Age philosophers. ] Fries answers this question in a different way saying that there is non-intuitive immediate knowledge. And the intuitionists like Michael Huemer hold the whole question is ridiculous in the first place since why limit reason? Based on some misconception of Hume? [about the idea that reason can only tell your what is already implicit in definitions.
This results in my idea that each of these three schools has a good point and ought to be part of the cannon of philosophy --Kant-Fries. Hegel. G.E. Moore.
[Another aspect of Kant that is hard to understand is the core idea that the categories unite the intuitions [the sense perceptions]. As Kelley Ross points out that this is an important point. A bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer. You need all the functions of the mind to process the information. But my question is "Who is the user"?
.
