“I’m hallucinating, so you exist.”

On page 139 of his book “Truth and Unstable,” the Rabbi claims that according to (late) Kantianism, these are phenomena that “I am deluded…” Bergman, in his book “The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant,” shows quite clearly that the attempt to “accuse” Kant of an illusory perception, as he puts it (p. 39), does not stem from the use of the concept of the thing-in-itself, and from there the road to Hermann Cohen is not long. I don’t understand how the Rabbi “accuses” Kant of the concept of “I am deluded,” meaning you exist (as he puts it). Isn’t Kant Berkeley ?! Something doesn’t add up for me? The Rabbi also claims that Kant “did not solve problems.” Kant himself writes that he wrote the critique in order to “make room for faith.” There is no solution here in the positive sense, but rather in clearing the way. If we ignore the subsequent stages (as in the example I gave above) of the schools that came after Kant (for example, Husserl, Hermann Cohen, and others), then it is really possible to reach deceptive realms. ???