Question

When presenting the epistemological problem and classifying the various positions regarding it, the Rabbi generally explains why naive empiricism is impossible, and why the transcendental approach is also not a solution, leaving us with a choice between recognizing a coordinating factor (similar to Leibniz’s position) and absolute skepticism (Hume). But as Bergman presents it in Thinkers of the Age (where he agrees with you that the required solution is the coordinating factor), there is also a third possibility: adopting an idealist position, according to which there is no need for a coordinating factor because thought and cognition are not separate to begin with; rather, everything is thought. (This is the approach that emerged from the school of Hermann Cohen, although he later retracted this view.) Why is this option not on the table in your view? Is it not more reasonable than positing that coordinating factor?