For those against the a priori, let me propose a sensible and rational middle ground. My philosophical outlook is informed by a spirit of naturalism. Intuition, perhaps prior to the senses, is also based in biology and sui generis with human consciousness. The model of consciousness which I closely adopt as the most accurate is Demasio's felt phenomenology. Using homeostasis as a baseline consciousness is extended all the way up or down the phylogenetic chain the the movement of individual cells. This is epiphenomenal and definitional to my particular framing of aesthetics. Ordered chaos is the litmus, the bandwidth for validation is in the eye of the conceiver and the value of the masses (Tolstoy's influence).
The truth claim is more of a theory of sorts, arranged at will anchored to the assumption that human beings are wholly part of nature. Without introducing the mind as some exalted citadel we all should know what meta is for! Metaphorically speaking is variable, ambiguous and beautiful, it's where ironies lie and contradictions compel us towards self isolation, tribal refutations or unbounded imagined potential. Why is it that the theists among us still advocate towards an omnipotent and benevolent God. For the purpose of comprehension and baiting the atheists with literal denegrations towards nothingness, the depth of the imagining begins and ends with the select few who "get it". Do you count yourself as someone who can accurately account for the valence of the transcendental? For example, John Stuart Mill and William Whewell both reduce the a priori to nothingness, meaning all genuine knowledge, theoretical or ethical, must be obtained by observation and experience. Shall we call it pre-Knowledge then and see how we fair?
Pre-Knowledge it is, the agreed terminology for an intuitive reflection existing unknown and prior to any knowledge. The epistemology of the not yet knowable, the potential and the discoverable. The pathway to discovery is inward circularing and socially reflective, towards a Platonic ideal perhaps but not necessarily. Does this qualify a priori "pre" knowledge as a pathway to objective facts or morality? We don't know what we don't know, discovery, on the other hand, is in the eye of the malignant conceiver. Skepticism? That makes two of us! Skeptism is a tool, razor sharp and an arrow of thought in the quiver of our rational being. Becoming is (yet) another story.