▸ HEAD-TO-HEAD
CUDWORTH VS IAMBLICHUS
Cudworth
1617–1688
The eternal pattern beneath the changing surface.
Iamblichus
~245–325
The eternal pattern beneath the changing surface.
▸ WHERE THEY SHARPLY DISAGREED
The three dimensions on which Cudworth and Iamblichus are farthest apart on Mull's 0–10 scale.
- Reverence for TraditionΔ 2 / 10Cudworth: 6/10Iamblichus: 8/10
somewhat (2/10): Iamblichus treats inherited tradition as a source of wisdom; Cudworth is readier to question it.
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 2 / 10Cudworth: 7/10Iamblichus: 9/10
somewhat (2/10): Iamblichus is more open to mystical or apophatic depths; Cudworth stays within what reason can name.
- Theoretical DriveΔ 1 / 10Cudworth: 7/10Iamblichus: 6/10
somewhat (1/10): Cudworth pursues understanding for its own sake; Iamblichus is more interested in what understanding is for.
▸ WHERE THEY OVERLAPPED
Where the gap is smallest — both with meaningful presence on the dimension (not "neither cared").
- Self as Illusiongap 0 / 10Cudworth: 6/10Iamblichus: 6/10
Both register moderate self as illusion.
- Ascetic Tendencygap 0 / 10Cudworth: 7/10Iamblichus: 7/10
Both lean strongly into ascetic tendency.
- Practical Orientationgap 0 / 10Cudworth: 5/10Iamblichus: 5/10
Both register moderate practical orientation.
▸ ALL 16 DIMENSIONS
The full vector comparison. Bars show their 0–10 scores side-by-side.
- Ascetic TendencyΔ 0
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 0
- Embodied SensibilityΔ 0
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 2
- Practical OrientationΔ 0
- Reverence for TraditionΔ 2
- Self as IllusionΔ 0
- Skeptical ReflexΔ 0
- Sovereign SelfΔ 0
- Theoretical DriveΔ 1
- Trust in ExperienceΔ 0
- Trust in ReasonΔ 0
- Tragic VisionΔ 0
- Universalist ImpulseΔ 1
- Vital AffirmationΔ 0
- Will to PowerΔ 0
◀ CUDWORTHIAMBLICHUS ▶
▶ What to do next