Rationalism or Empiricism?

[Magical Realist]

"Rationalism and empiricism are two core opposing theories in epistemology—the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and source of knowledge. Rationalism holds that true knowledge comes primarily from reason, logic, and innate ideas independent of the senses, whereas empiricism asserts that all knowledge is derived from sense perception and physical experience.."---Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy

Why either or? It is my theory that they are both valid approaches to the truth. And especially good when they can be combined. I think the cohesive force of the subjective logic of rationalism matches the adhesive force of the objective causality of empiricism. Both converge remarkably well on the common self-evidencing of the truth. It's why Darwin and Einstein were both right, approaching epistemic consummation from two opposite directions. But what about Hume and Kant?

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1403571618558477

[Syne]

We wouldn't be able to test and explain as much empirical evidence without logical abstraction.

[Magical Realist]

I think there is some overlap going on between the two. A rationalist will always incorporate real life observations and examples and analogies into his thesis, while an empiricist must always formulate a hypothesis in which his data and observations will be intelligible. Einstein's trains and clocks and Darwin's natural selection. The thought experiments of the rationalist are the counterparts to the empiricist's theory-building.

Philosophically I see phenomenological investigation as a mix between rationalism and empiricism, relying on both cognitive sense-making and conscious presencing to disclose the self-evident nature of reality, whatever that is.