We do not need to give primacy to either. We can use both in equal measure, or whatever proportion seems appropriate to the matter at hand. 2:40

An intuitive notion amounts to this: We can see that the proposition is true because we can see and/or imagine any number of cases where the proposition holds, and on the other hand, we can't find or even imagine how a counter example could be possible. We have performed and unbounded inductive experiment in our imagination which tells use the proposition must necessarily be true. The best example I can think of is the transitivity of equivalence. I can find many case where it holds and can't imagine what it would mean for it not to hold. Ditto for the transitivity of containment for physical objects. If A is in B and B is in C then A is in C. If you want to call such intuitions a priori go ahead, but I don't see it, and I don't see what it buys you labelling anything as a priori, since anything a priori must also necessarily be demonstrable. What would be the content of any a priori truth, if it had no a posteriori consequences. 14:54

nice video

Your channel is exactly what I needed. Thanks for your work.