Does philosophy rely on intuitions? If so, and all of philosophy comes down to intuition, how can one person be deemed to be more rational than other? In this world, most would agree that you cannot be certain of anything, apart from your own experience. Thus for basically anything else, there is a certain level of faith involved in believing in quite literally anything. Does this de facto make no position more valid than any other?
Let's take the case of a flat earther vs. a person who believes that the earth is a sphere. Almost everyone would say the flat earther is being irrational. But both would have reasons to believe in things or simply take it on faith. A person who believes that the earth is a sphere may believe it for certain reasons. But those reasons themselves would need to be justified and so on. Sooner or later, you are going to come across axioms that you must believe on faith. Even if this person is literally in space and can literally see that the earth is a sphere, he would still have to believe, on faith, that he is not being controlled by some alien or that his brain isn't in a vat or that his brain is not hallucinating the image.
Of course, these explanations seem ridiculous, but even this ridiculousness seems to be based on intuition. Some of our intuitions arguably come from inductive inferences, but as Hume pointed out with the problem of induction, you can't even say that it is more probable that the Sun will rise tomorrow than a goblin devouring you tomorrow since that itself would depend on inductive inferences making it circular.
Does this mean that without factoring in assumptions and intuitions that themselves can't be non circularly justified, you can't even say that someone like a flat earther is being less rational than a person who believes the earth is a sphere?
More interestingly, if all of philosophy comes down to intuition, what makes a person who has no knowledge of philosophical subject matter less adept at coming to conclusions than someone who has experience in philosophical subject matter? To put it more crudely, why should I care more about what David Hume thinks about a topic than a random Joe?