What is the philosophical disagreement between only theory and empiricism

Divergence: the main difference between the two is that solipsism believes that there is innate knowledge - innate ideas - and that the body of knowledge is deduced from innate ideas; empiricism does not recognize innate ideas, and they believe that knowledge is all derived from our sensory experience. In fact, the difference is not so clear-cut, and later, in his polemic with Locke (the great New Essay on Human Reason), Leibniz pointed out that the difference is not so much whether something gifted exists, but rather what the giftedness is, with the sole theory arguing that the giftedness is knowledge, and the empiricists arguing that it is ability.

Reason: There is a reason why the main position of the theory of solipsism is on the European continent (Descartes in France, Spinoza in Holland, and Leibniz in Germany), and the empiricism is mainly in the UK (e.g., the three main representatives of empiricism: Locke, Berkeley, and Hume). Britain has a tradition of empiricism since ancient times, your honor can go to understand the main ideas of William of Ockham (if not necessary, do not add entities), Rogier Bacon, and Francis Bacon, who are the pioneers of British empiricism. In short, a series of reasons led the English to put more faith in their own sensory experience and little faith in the idea of giftedness. This is true even now, and philosophical thought in Europe and America still has an empiricist bent.

The philosophical traditions of continental Europe, especially Germany, focused on discursive thinking and prized reason (or knowing), and still do. As to why there is a difference in thinking between the two regions, I think further exploration is needed.