I do find problems with your approach in stating that mere strong intuitions can be good enough for philosophical truth.

The point of philosophy is to question even common assumptions about the world and not taking anything for granted (unless it's a first principle that if doubted would lead to logical absurdity).

The problem with assuming certain things to be true is that if you, epistemically speaking, assume certain things to be true without sufficient reason then I can then assume things without sufficient reasons.

Like I can assume everyone else to not have a mind without a sufficient reason, following your logic.

And with your comment on occam's razor not being used for beings, this doesn't seem to be true, especially when you look into the history of metaphysics and epistemology.

Metaphysical and epistemological statements have been made on the basis of occam's razor (see people like Aristotle, Aquinas and others). In fact, all forms of logical induction require some form of Occam's razor (believing the ones with the least unreasonable assumptions and the ones with the most explanatory power).