▸ HEAD-TO-HEAD
HOBBES VS MACHIAVELLI
Hobbes
1588–1679
What is is not what must be.
Machiavelli
1469–1527
Walking on, alone, with the question still open.
▸ WHERE THEY SHARPLY DISAGREED
The three dimensions on which Hobbes and Machiavelli are farthest apart on Mull's 0–10 scale.
- Universalist ImpulseΔ 3 / 10Hobbes: 5/10Machiavelli: 2/10
somewhat (3/10): Hobbes reaches for universal moral principles; Machiavelli weighs particular contexts more heavily.
- Trust in ReasonΔ 2 / 10Hobbes: 9/10Machiavelli: 7/10
somewhat (2/10): Hobbes trusts reasoned argument more strongly than Machiavelli does.
- Theoretical DriveΔ 2 / 10Hobbes: 7/10Machiavelli: 5/10
somewhat (2/10): Hobbes pursues understanding for its own sake; Machiavelli 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").
- Communal Embeddednessgap 0 / 10Hobbes: 5/10Machiavelli: 5/10
Both register moderate communal embeddedness.
- Will to Powergap 0 / 10Hobbes: 8/10Machiavelli: 8/10
Both lean strongly into will to power.
- Tragic Visiongap 0 / 10Hobbes: 7/10Machiavelli: 7/10
Both lean strongly into tragic vision.
▸ ALL 16 DIMENSIONS
The full vector comparison. Bars show their 0–10 scores side-by-side.
- Ascetic TendencyΔ 0
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 0
- Embodied SensibilityΔ 1
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 0
- Practical OrientationΔ 1
- Reverence for TraditionΔ 1
- Self as IllusionΔ 1
- Skeptical ReflexΔ 1
- Sovereign SelfΔ 1
- Theoretical DriveΔ 2
- Trust in ExperienceΔ 1
- Trust in ReasonΔ 2
- Tragic VisionΔ 0
- Universalist ImpulseΔ 3
- Vital AffirmationΔ 1
- Will to PowerΔ 0
◀ HOBBESMACHIAVELLI ▶
▶ What to do next