david starling
Well-known member
This is a case of I.Q. denigrating E.Q.
No they didn't. Aldebaran and Antares have the nature of Mars, because they appear red. I give a few other examples here - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1012664&postcount=4
So, any and all red stars are just like Mars? No specific differences?
There are specific differences between Aldebaran and Antares according to Ptolemy, with the first being of the nature of Mars (probably because it is very close to its colour), while the latter being of the nature of Mars and moderately Mercury (probably because it has some tint of varied colour). It is important to note that Ptolemy classifies dark/faint colours of fixed stars with the cooling and moderately drying nature of Saturn. If these colours apply equally to the planets and fixed stars, as they appear to, then Uranus and Neptune have the nature of Saturn.
How about Algol and Regulus?
Yet, they don't. Does that make his astrological star descriptions suspect?
Yeah, they do. We can't see them with this geocentric methodology. Maybe they have different temperament for other places, from which they are actually visible.
Yet, they don't. Does that make his astrological star descriptions suspect?
They are visible, with a telescope.
Wait you are saying that all traditional descriptions for fixed stars and the five planets worked out with this consistent methodology are suspect?
And astrology was worked out without a telescope.
No. I'm saying astrology wasn't developed with a consistent methodology. That came later, and forced astrology into a particular mold that limits its creativity.
I just gave you examples of how all ancient astrologers agreed on the powers, qualities, natures and sects of the planets and fixed stars, because of their rays. That is a consistent methodology, whether you like it or not.
Ptolemy didn't come up with the list - ''Such, then, are the observations of the effects of the stars themselves as made by our predecessors.'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#9
Well-organized afterthoughts, but based on intuitive reasoning.
This is a case of I.Q. denigrating E.Q.
This is a case of a person who has studied ancient texts smashing the argument of a lazy modern astrologer who does not like reading.