Kant, in his studies of transcendental idealism, made the "illogical gap" between theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, at the end of theoretical study, by requiring the contemplation of intelligence in order complete the consciousness study. German idealists tried for over a century to solve this illogical gap, and I haven't seen one truly convincing philosophy that solved it. Now, I'm asking, was that gap ever been solved, or was it left as Kant put it, effectively causing a dualistic approach throughout all of German idealism?
What I mean with closing the illogical gap is closing it while staying in the theoretical philosophy, and not attempting to merge it with the practical, or judgmental/intuitive philosophies.
Edit 2 (replying to the comments, as I can't seem to be able to comment):
My thought is, most philosophies tries to be comprehensive in their method - they try to explain most if not all of the nature in one complete methodological system. I'm not talking about morality, politics, and such, but at least the philosophy of nature (including epistemology). Kant made an ultimately revolutionary move by seperating the fields into theoretical, practical, and judgemental (causing most thinkers past his time to think around these same structures). What I'm asking is, if anyone ever tried (and hopefully succeeded, as I know Fichte tried but in the end dismissed his earlier thoughts) to once again combine those fields under one systemic methodology?
Edit 3: @Philip Klöcking, thanks, I will look into him. And about the interpretation of Kant, I thought that was the well known interpretation of his philosophy, and it was quite intuitive for me - in his quest to eliminate dogmatism, Kant understood that theoretical and practical philosophies must be separated. And sure, the judgmental philosophy synthesize them both (anachronism, I know), but it's still two pieces stitched together and not one whole piece (which was something I liked about the dogmatic, earlier philosophy). By the way, I know the term "illogical gap" from reading Hugo Bergmann's interpretation of Kant, so I may be hugely influenced by a wrong interpretation, but as I've said before, I do think it's the intuitive interpretation.