Is observation more important to the philosopher than logic? Vice versa? I assume most answers will be more complex than that, but it may still be a useful question to consider.
Additionally, it most likely matters what the context is, or which field the questions pertains to, i.e. science, technology, ethics, religion…
It depends upon the mindset of the person I think. Some it may be logic, some it may be observation. Some may aproach from both.
I would like to know why either should have importance.
To what end? If you see footprints in the snow that make a trail leading around a corner wouldn’t you assume that a person has in the recent past walked around that corner? That surmisal is based on both observation and logic. Did I miss the subtlety of my own question? 
I am just saying why should any of it have relevance beyond the individual?
Today’s usage of rationality is no longer about “why” but instead relies on strengthening of pre-possessed idealizations.
Of course I would but at the same time I wouldn’t care all that much if it had no relevance to my own activities.
I don’t see why one’s curiousity of the world should become a global mission for everyone else. ( Idealization.)
Well we must be interested in what each other thinks or we wouldn’t be spending time on an internet forum.
Are you basically saying that modern philosophy is simply a war of wills with noone actually listening to each other and that logic is misused - and that you either like it that way or just give in? Or maybe you just refuse to have philosophical discussions?
That’s reasonable. 
If you’re talking about attempts to reach consensus I tend to agree with you. Although consensus must be important to some fields, such as political philosophy. No?
Granted.
Yes I am saying modern philosophy specifically consists of warring wills.
I don’t care much for the topic of logic because I deny that any logical force exists period beyond the observers known as men that conceives them.
Without the observer logic ceases to be.
I like philosophy but in my own ways only.
I specifically do mean consensus.
Today’s philosophy is a warring of wills where everybody is fighting for one single “absolute” global consensus of “humanity” and to be honest I find it all to be pointless.
As for politics I am a anarchist who views the government to be a religious institution. ( Enough said.)
Ok. Interesting. 
I think I actually agree in many ways, although my conclusions may be somewhat different.
Observation is more important. It all starts with life as we find it. You can blunder through without logic. Ask any woman.
That was a joke.
I was only kidding.
Regarding original post.
Logic is a syntax to reason observation. Without observation, it’s meaningless. On the whole, observation is more important than logic because you can still have observation without logic, not the other way around. Still . . . when do we ever actually have a real observation? Sorry for throwing you into epistemology so brashly.
I’m betting that that isn’t the answer to the question you’re looking for. Maybe what you’re asking is wheather logic is generally more valuable than circumstantial intuition.
Example of logic: “If I take this dog outside it will get excited. I took the dog outside, so it got excited.”
The same idea with circumstantial intuition: “The dog seems excited, probably because I’m taking him outside and he seems to like that.”
Sometimes logic takes priority because there is clarity. We all know how messy a situation can become without clarity. Otherwise, circumstantial intuition comes natural to us because we’re built to adapt to the circumstance.
Overall- I think that logic will have more power in the end. As its complexity grows, we will start to regard it as intuitive, rather than some choppy, meaningless dick-and-jane redundancy.
But in the manner of our situation as humans in our lives- circumstantial intuition is more important. We are not logicians by nature. We can help produce and manipulate logic. We should not be taught to live out life in a logical manner. It’s too unnatural, impractical to us. Can you ever imagine all the rules to follow to do the “right” thing? Agencies of society should use empirical reasoning to help us make logical decisions, but we should not feel responsable for doing this everywhere in our lives.
Logic is not the thing that should take priority over your everyday observations as a human being. It should take priority in empirical argument for the record.
So I’m giving a vague “YES.” The philosopher being the person ideating and rationalizing our world should commit to logic. But for you as a person in general life, (even if you have a philosophy degree) my answer is no.
Good one!
Brashly? This is exactly what I was looking for, and your thoughts here are very similar to my own.
What do you mean by “Overall- I think that logic will have more power in the end.”? Are you implying that we are heading in that direction as a human species?