a) the a priori is but a special case of the empirical, and the empirical a spec

a) the a priori is but a special case of the empirical, and the empirical a special case of the testimonial.

(b) one does not define a general case by a special. that would require that we ignore information available in the general.

(c) one of the great fallacies of all time is that a subset of terms can be used to define itself. The fact that you (and many others) posit such things is not much different from the intentional design people positing things after the discovery and expansion of evolution.

Testimonially speaking, the record of history consists of DEMONSTRATED preferences, and the literary record consists of REPORTED, and undemonstrated preferences. The difference between demonstrated truths and reported lies.

In other words, just as literature claims only to be fantasy by which we can learn by analogy; Rational Philosophy claims to be that which it cannot be demonstrated (complete); and Theology claims to be that which is impossible to demonstrate (supernatural).

As far as I can tell, pretty much all of philosophy proper is nonsense, wishful thinking, and deceit. The tradition broke between Supernatural Theology, Imaginary Platonism, and Demonstrated Aristotelianism -fairly early on.

There are no answers there. Only the record of errors.