Bob is great. I was fortunate enough to study in his classes dealing with Kant's CPR and how that ties into contemporary analytic philosophy. Get his books, for sure, and maybe acquire a quick background in the analytic/synthetic, a priori/a posteriori, and necessary/contingent distinctions. Kripke's and other causal theories of reference challenge that. But Bob fires back against scientific essentialism. Never forget that Kant and Bob are empirical *realists* and transcendental idealists. But this isn't Berkeley all over again, either.
Can you have Robert Hanna on again? I would like to ask a few questions. About intentionally interacting with the world where Robert Hanna claims Kants view is better than Chomskys I have to disagree. Ask yourself this question can you intentionally jump to the top of a cupboard of 10 ft height? No. Point being your interaction with the world dependant and constricted by nature and human nature. Much like a human cannot run 20m/s he also cannot have thoughts over concepts which he does not possess. Also intension or representations which Chomsky focuses on is not semantics relation, ie mind world relation. But these representations basically light up and through innate unconcious rules of inference create the phenomena of meaning which we can observe through our inner eye.
