It's a bit of a limited question, to my mind. The best artists are usually theorists (or, more accurately, hypothesists), exploring some aspect of the human condition through visual creativity, which is not unlike philosophy. The difference is that the two exploratory expressions originate from a combimation of differing, but not wholly unrelated, neural impulses.

Warhol, for instance, explored the boundary between an artist and his work, what it meant to be an artist in an increasingly saturated consumer age.

Grant Wood, I think, tried to explore the line between reality and contrived reality/fantasy owing to some harsh life experiences, the same as Kahlo, O'Keefe, etc.

Edward Hopper tried, I think, to explore the human tendency to escape reality by focusing more on reality and how bleak it could be.

So whether Magritte was more one than the other is limited in scope, as it's better for me to ask if there actually is a reason to distinguish one from the other?