[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Joelr, I am a little surprised you didn't mention David Bohm.

Another Kantian?

Bohm's views bear some similarities to those of Immanuel Kant, according to Wouter Hanegraaff. For example, Kant held that the parts of an organism, such as cells, simultaneously exist to sustain the whole, and depend upon the whole for their own existence and functioning.[citation needed] Kant also proposed that the process of thought plays an active role in organizing knowledge, which implies theoretical insights are instrumental to the process of acquiring factual knowledge.

Kant restricted knowledge to appearances only and denied the existence of knowledge of any "thing in itself," but Bohm believed that theories in science are "forms of insight that arise in our attempts to obtain a perception of a deeper nature of reality as a whole" (Bohm & Hiley, 1993, p. 323). Thus for Bohm the thing in itself is the whole of existence, conceived of not as a collection of parts but as an undivided movement. In this view Bohm is closer to Kant's critic, Arthur Schopenhauer,[citation needed] who identified the thing in itself with the will, an inner metaphysical reality that grounds all outer phenomena. Schopenhauer's will plays a role analogous to that of the implicate order; for example, it is objectified (Bohm might say it is "made explicate") to form physical matter. And Bohm's concept that consciousness and matter share a common ground resembles Schopenhauer's claim that even inanimate objects possess an inward noumenal nature.

David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schopenhauer died in 1860. Kant died in 1804.

I wouldn't recommend Schopenhauer: probably the most pessimestic, anti-LOA philosophy you could ever read.