Understanding the Basics of the Book of Truth and Unstable – Knowing the World

peace,
In your book “Truth and Unstable” and in Two Carts, you present the claim that in order to deal with the vacuum created by the emptiness of the analyst, and the lack of inferential abilities in the empiricist, one must reach synthetic thinking. This thinking is composed of empiricist and analytic sides – thinking and cognition. You are aware that this is a significant innovation and a rather isohistorical and puzzling alternative, and therefore, you try to justify it in Chapter 18.
To be honest, I didn’t really understand the way you tried to justify it there, I’d be happy if you could explain.
As I understand it, you are attacking the understanding that there is only “sight” in the eyes. After all, the idealists have already wondered about this too. How do you know that the eyes really reflect something out there? Rather, you are claiming that what gives validity to our acceptance of faith in sight is that immediate experience of the inner certainty that prevails in me regarding sight. So, if we have that feeling of certainty regarding intuition, why contradict it?!
But I didn’t understand the argument from this point, the fact that we have a sense of certainty about the correctness of intuition, does not mean that intuition is a cognitive tool, maybe it is about correct understandings that God has instilled in man? Or an axiom? After all, we have no feeling that it is a cognitive tool – a fact that you are trying to prove with statistical tools. So why assume that it is indeed such a tool? Isn’t it better to claim that it is an axiom and that’s it?