i was reading Robert Hanna' works and his blog and noted that he thinks all American so called "Analytic Philosophy" is destined for the trash bin and instead advocates a Forward to Kant Approach. This makes a lot of sense except for one particular problem--that Kant's solution to  the synthetic a-priori never really worked that well. There were lots of different approaches after him trying to answer the same problem and later there was the Neo Kant approach- all of which fell into oblivion.

[One problem in Kant was noticed right away by a close friend of his Scholz and his critique was printed  and Kant claimed after that that he would answer. The question was about the Transcendental Deduction--not at all a trivial side issue, but rather the fulcrum upon which the entire Critique of Pure Reason revolves.

And my mind there is another flaw. It is that philosophy is supposed to help us understand the world and ourselves-not create a system that is not credible without a lot of evidence. I mean, in natural sciences or mathematics, you do not start with assumptions that sound good but are not very obvious, You start with simple things. The shortest line between two points is  straight line, Not a set of questions based on Berkley and Hume.

By this I do not mean to trivialize Kant, but rather suggest the modification of Fries and Leonard Nelson to Kant in which the realm that reason can penetrate is limited but that by immediate non intuitive knowledge there is knowledge of the 12 categories  and possibly even faith a per Otto

[hume made a mistake for some reason Kant did not pick up and which was a stumbling block for him i.e that reason can tell us only when a definition entails a contradiction--a per Euclid. ]