I had a conversation [with Sarah Chaya] in which I tried to defend the point of view of the Rambam concerning Aristotle. My point was that even though the Rambam is Neo Platonic [Plato, Plotinus, and Aristotle} there is a reason to look for modifications of that based on Kant and Fries. Mainly my point was that this the real world, the world of ideas [not this world of shadows] is where real knowledge is. But to Kant that is where we have knowledge only within the conditions of possible experience. It is the idea of Fries that there is access even beyond that realm by means of immediate non intuitive knowledge. So we can have a relationship with God, but not by reason by by a different kind of knowledge not of reason, nor of feeling. A third kind. (The point is this is knowledge of God but not through reason nor any kind of sense perception or feelings.])
Of course we know that the Guide for the Perplexed was a scandal. No one liked the attitude of the Rambam towards a pagan philosopher. But the Ramban/Nahmanidess wrote an impassioned letter to the Baalai HaTosphot in France and Germany saying to leave the Rambam alone--even though the Ramban did not in fact agree with the Rambam about this issue.
