Regardless, if any of you believe that his foundations are seriously flawed or that there is a school of thought far more beneficial than his own, I would love to hear constructive advice or criticism.
Little point in asking for recycled fare that has already been hashed out over time by professional discourse. Start with Kant, who limited theoretical reason to appearances only -- "the central figure in modern philosophy"
(Rohlf), who "eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy"
(Guyer). If after reading the second installment in his series of critiques -- Critique of Practical Reason
-- you should feel that Kant was yet humping Plato's "Good" in his own roundabout way, then you're probably on your way to confirming an agreement with Whitehead that "All western philosophy [still] consists of footnotes to Plato"
Bear in mind that something like Rorty's neopragmatism entered the venue of comparative literature -- it's a rejection of that tradition. Yet another, actually, since analytic philosophy --his former school of philosophy-- itself either originally claimed to have been such or retrospectively has been conceived to have done such. Yawn.