Or at least how would you describe someone like that?
Maybe 'Agnostic' instead of 'Gnostic'? Definition of agnostic is (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something. while gnostic is relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Maybe 'Agnostic' instead of 'Gnostic'? Definition of agnostic is *(in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something.* while gnostic is *relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.*
Gnostic means "to know from within". It is basically the process of accumulating information through the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and logic). This is probably a slant I have developed because I came across Gnosticism through Carl Jung. I found a bit of info pertaining to his views on Gnosticism. I think a Jung has built a bridge potentially between agnosticism and Gnosticism. Someone else here mentioned Stoicism and I think that is pretty darn close to the truth of OP's question.
Jung saw the Gnostics not as syncretic schools of mixed theological doctrines, but as genuine visionaries, and saw their imagery not as myths but as records of inner experience. He wrote that "The explanation of Gnostic ideas 'in terms of themselves,' i.e., in terms of their historical foundations, is futile, for in that way they are reduced only to their less developed forestages but not understood in their actual significance." Instead, he worked to understand and explain Gnosticism from a psychological standpoint. While providing something of an ancient mirror of his work, Jung saw "his psychology not as a contemporary version of Gnosticism, but as a contemporary counterpart to it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_in_modern_times#Carl_Jung
Gnostic means "to know from within". It is basically the process of accumulating information through the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and logic). This is probably a slant I have developed because I came across Gnosticism through Carl Jung. I found a bit of info pertaining to his views on Gnosticism. I think a Jung has built a bridge potentially between agnosticism and Gnosticism. Someone else here mentioned Stoicism and I think that is pretty darn close to the truth of OP's question.
> Jung saw the Gnostics not as syncretic schools of mixed theological doctrines, but as genuine visionaries, and saw their imagery not as myths but as records of inner experience. He wrote that "The explanation of Gnostic ideas 'in terms of themselves,' i.e., in terms of their historical foundations, is futile, for in that way they are reduced only to their less developed forestages but not understood in their actual significance." Instead, he worked to understand and explain Gnosticism from a psychological standpoint. While providing something of an ancient mirror of his work, Jung saw "his psychology not as a contemporary version of Gnosticism, but as a contemporary counterpart to it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_in_modern_times#Carl_Jung
OK, I was coming at it from an early Christian, Hellenistic POV. Gnostic, as in the 'Divine Spark' philosophy. I have never read much Jung, I know the name, but nothing about his philosophy. My knowledge of the 19th century European philosophy is woefully lacking. Thanks for sharing - I'll look more into this.
Btw, I was the one who mentioned Stoic philosophy. Thanks for the compliments!
OK, I was coming at it from an early Christian, Hellenistic POV. Gnostic, as in the 'Divine Spark' philosophy. I have never read much Jung, I know the name, but nothing about his philosophy. My knowledge of the 19th century European philosophy is woefully lacking. Thanks for sharing - I'll look more into this.
Btw, I was the one who mentioned Stoic philosophy. Thanks for the compliments!
Gnostic or maybe a pure anarchist with out any of the isms. The reason why I say anarchist is because they don't believe in the notion of others authority over themselves. Also party politics (left and right) are part of dialectic manipulation. It's 2 sides of the same shitty coin. Allowing others will over your own is slavery and I think once you get to this realization the world is your oyster and you no longer have to play other people's stupid games.
A person who is like this may be described as direct in action and humble in what they do not know because they are the only ones they can rely themselves for truth.