▸ HEAD-TO-HEAD
BERKELEY VS LOCKE
Berkeley
1685–1753
Patient mapper of how things fit.
Locke
1632–1704
What is is not what must be.
▸ WHERE THEY SHARPLY DISAGREED
The three dimensions on which Berkeley and Locke are farthest apart on Mull's 0–10 scale.
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 5 / 10Berkeley: 6/10Locke: 1/10
clearly (5/10): Berkeley is more open to mystical or apophatic depths; Locke stays within what reason can name.
- Will to PowerΔ 3 / 10Berkeley: 2/10Locke: 5/10
somewhat (3/10): Locke emphasises shaping and self-overcoming; Berkeley weighs acceptance or context more.
- Sovereign SelfΔ 3 / 10Berkeley: 4/10Locke: 7/10
somewhat (3/10): Locke treats the individual as the seat of moral authority; Berkeley embeds it elsewhere.
▸ WHERE THEY OVERLAPPED
Where the gap is smallest — both with meaningful presence on the dimension (not "neither cared").
- Universalist Impulsegap 0 / 10Berkeley: 7/10Locke: 7/10
Both lean strongly into universalist impulse.
- Communal Embeddednessgap 0 / 10Berkeley: 5/10Locke: 5/10
Both register moderate communal embeddedness.
- Skeptical Reflexgap 1 / 10Berkeley: 5/10Locke: 6/10
Both register moderate skeptical reflex.
▸ ALL 16 DIMENSIONS
The full vector comparison. Bars show their 0–10 scores side-by-side.
- Ascetic TendencyΔ 2
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 0
- Embodied SensibilityΔ 2
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 5
- Practical OrientationΔ 3
- Reverence for TraditionΔ 2
- Self as IllusionΔ 2
- Skeptical ReflexΔ 1
- Sovereign SelfΔ 3
- Theoretical DriveΔ 3
- Trust in ExperienceΔ 2
- Trust in ReasonΔ 2
- Tragic VisionΔ 1
- Universalist ImpulseΔ 0
- Vital AffirmationΔ 1
- Will to PowerΔ 3
◀ BERKELEYLOCKE ▶
▶ What to do next