wikipedia:

> Thus, the two kinds of knowledge, justification, or argument, may be glossed:

> A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).[3]

> A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

There's nothing wrong or controversial about my definition. Non-Experiental Knowledge is Logical Knowledge by exhaustion. "Feeling" is exactly the kind of thing "a priori" was intended to exclude.

> In this sense it is similar to saying that something is axiomatic.

In no sense of the word, colloquial or academic, does "a priori" mean "axiomatic". They are different beasts.

> Besides I'm not at all sure there is a difference between knowledge gained from logic or from experience: <skims youtube video>

The video redefines the Problem of Infinite Regress as "Modus Morons". I've read What the Tortoise said to Achilles myself. Yes, the truth of modus ponens is arguably derived from induction. But that's a topic I'm not going to get into right now. At the very least, the terms are useful to label their disparate track-records.

If you want to dig further, your general position is called Idealism.

You have an argumentative style which implies that you are more interested in winning than seeking the truth. As such I am dissinclined to take you too seriously.