Which sign is weaker?

YonyGursho

Well-known member
Which sign is less aggressive, pisces or libra?

Libra is opposites with Aries, the sign of aggression itself. But pisces is all about universal compassion (though not necessarily universal love), sacrifices, and giving.

Both are passive and weak willed, and fragile. Although pisces is emotional whereas libra is not.
 

waybread

Well-known member
What is with these questions about signs? They don't work this way.

A planet is the "what," like the subject of a sentence.

The sign shows how or in what manner a planet operates. It works like a adverb or adjective in a sentence.

So what planets in these signs are we talking about?

Then each sign has the quality of being cardinal, fixed, or mutable. Cardinal means initiative-taking, a self-starter. Libra is the cardinal air sign. Mutable means flexible, adaptable. Pisces is the mutable water sign.

But read Lao Tsu, The Tao Te Ching on the strength of being passive and adaptable. Or western folk songs on the mighty oak tree felled by a wind storm, while the flexible willow survives.

Then please read more widely about the characteristics of each of the signs.

A book I highly recommend is Steven Forrest, The Inner Sky, because he takes a dynamic approach to planets, signs, and houses. Signs are not static collections of character traits.

Ask yourself, with these or any other signs: what is its goal, or endpoint?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Which sign is less aggressive, pisces or libra?
neither :smile:

Libra is opposites with Aries, the sign of aggression itself.
But pisces is all about universal compassion (though not necessarily universal love), sacrifices, and giving.
Both are passive and weak willed, and fragile.
Although pisces is emotional whereas libra is not.
Signs are neither Strong Nor Weak :smile:

PLANETS may have Weak or Strong PLACEMENTS


No sign is intrinsically strong or weak.
It is made so by the planets in it (or the lack thereof,)
and by its position amidst the house cusps.


Just for example, as the mutable water sign, we might see Pisces as "weak"
but if someone has Pisces in the 10th house with the MC, sun and Jupiter (domiciled) there
with Jupiter trining the (domiciled) moon in Cancer,
Mr. Pisces has a lot of strength in this situation.
Much more so than the sun intercepted in Scorpio (fixed water) in the 12th house.

You get the picture.



There is no such thing as a weak sign.

There are weak placements, but no weak signs.

Signs are neutral.
They have descriptions, sure, like human, mute, violent, bestial, fertile, barren, crooked, long ascending, and on and on,
but at the end of the day, the signs are neutral.

It's the planets both in and that rule them that bring them to life.




Hi

There are No weak sun signs.

To say there is, it is belittling astrology.


There are natal charts that indicate a weak personality.
Charts lack of hard aspects,
(especially from saturn to personal planets)
with full of trines and sextiles may point to a weak person.
when there are tough transits, they easily feel depressed and they become paralyzed and Can't cope with problems.
Because,they are not familiar to that kind of stressful energy.



"there is no such thing as a weak sign"

 

waybread

Well-known member
Yoni, no matter what types of debates you may be reading on social media, there is a huge lore of astrology that you will find in books and some articles or more intellectual websites.

Signs show how or in what manner a planet operates. Many signs have no planets in them. In such cases, we especially have to look at the situation of the planet ruling the sign on the house cusp.

Suppose someone has the sun in Mars-ruled Aries; but Mars is in Cancer in the 12th house. How do you suppose the sun gets along in such cases?

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Baat

Well-known member
Neither of these sun signs are weak! I think Libra suns are often misinterpreted as weak ("He's always changing his opinion! He's kind of a people pleaser, where's his backbone?") and Pisces in general has a profound tenderness for humanity, a tangible softness (for me this energy is distinctive and noticeable in any personal planet) that is not weak at all as it's based on deep compassion and intuitive understanding. The combination of Aries and Pisces in personal planets comes across as very innocent but not quite naive. My experiences with Pisces energy is that they are capable of being deeply wounded, but I wouldn't describe any of them as "weak."
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
Yoni, no matter what types of debates you may be reading on social media, there is a huge lore of astrology that you will find in books and some articles or more intellectual websites.

Signs show how or in what manner a planet operates. Many signs have no planets in them. In such cases, we especially have to look at the situation of the planet ruling the sign on the house cusp.

Suppose someone has the sun in Mars-ruled Aries; but Mars is in Cancer in the 12th house. How do you suppose the sun gets along in such cases?

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]

What's sad is that you think im talking about natal signs rather than the 12 signs of the zodiac in general.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
What do you mean by "natal signs"? Sun signs?

If someone has a sign with no planets in it and it's not rising or on the MC, this sign is probably not going to be a strong player in the chart no matter what it is.
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
What do you mean by "natal signs"? Sun signs?

If someone has a sign with no planets in it and it's not rising or on the MC, this sign is probably not going to be a strong player in the chart no matter what it is.

My points keep going over your head lol.


The zodiac has 12 signs, each is unique in that each is differently built with its own unique strengths and weaknesses.

Therefore, if we listed the characteristics of each of the 12 signs we would list many strengths and weaknesses. So now explain to me, how are there no signs that are weak or strong by our world's standards?
 

waybread

Well-known member
Yony, Yes, I got that you were trying to pose a simple question. But there are no simple answers in the way you posed your question.

If you're just learning astrology, see if you can follow what I'm saying. If not, I am happy to clarify or elaborate. Let's start with modern astrology, the kind most people practice on this forum.

We're agreed on 12 signs. Beyond that you can read pop-schlock astrology sites about signs as baskets of static personality traits, and pick and choose which traits you like and dislike. Which turns your astrology into a highly subjective ego-centric activity. Obviously, Astrology For Adults gets way beyond this.

Astrology works with horoscopes for real people and events, not disembodied abstractions. Thinking of signs as disembodied abstractions may be an interesting activity, but astrology doesn't work that way.

In a horoscope some of those 12 signs will have planets in them, some will not. A sign's "strength" is only relative, depending upon (a) whether or not it has any planets in it, and if so, which ones. (b) Whether a sign is at a chart angle, notably the ascendant or MC. Throw in other non-planetary points if you wish, like the moon's nodes or the part of fortune; but basically look at planets.

If you do traditional western astrology, you would probably also consider (c) the sign's position on the house cusp. Angular strengthens it. The 12th, 6th, or 8th house weakens it. [Signs and houses are not the same thing, incidentally, except in medical astrology and in some modern astrology which normally I don't recommend.]

So signs are stronger or weaker by virtue of their contents, not intrinsically on their own. Put it this way: is your wallet more valuable if it has $1000 dollars in it and paid-off credit cards, or is it more valuable with $2 in it and maxed-out credit cards? One is "full" and the other is virtually "empty."

A sign has no intrinsic strength or weakness on its own, independently of its content and location in the chart.

You might think a fixed sign on its own is stronger than a mutable sign on its own, but astrology doesn't work this way. A sign tells you how or in what manner a planet operates, similar to an adverb or adjective in a sentence.

Suppose someone has a stellium in Pisces which includes the sun, Jupiter, and Venus; and Pisces is the sign on the AC (rising sign.) Leo, in contrast, is on the cusp of the 6th house, and has no planets, angles, or sensitive points in it.

Obviously Pisces is the strongest sign in this example, despite being the mutable water sign. It is angular. Jupiter is domiciled and Venus is exalted (traditional) in Pisces. Leo still acts like Leo in this person's 6th house of health, illness, work, and service, but it isn't a strong player. Moreover, because Leo's ruler, the sun, is in Pisces in the first house, that Pisces sun has a big say in how those 6th house matters function.

The formal way of saying whether or not a sign has any planets in it is calling it "tenanted" or "untenanted."

It actually works analogously to a landlord with 12 investment properties (signs.) Some of those properties are occupied by tenants who pay rent. Some of his properties are untenanted. The tenanted properties add to the landlord's financial strength. The untenanted properties do not. [Of course, the landlord might have bad tenants who trash his property and drag down his income, but that's another astrological story.]

So I hope you understand that signs are not inherently weak or strong on their own, in the modern astrology I and most people on this forum usually practice.

In Hellenistic astrology, if you want to get into that branch, signs are differentiated by virtue of the their planetary ruler, or planet that is domiciled in them. (See the beginning of Vettius Valens, Anthologies, for examples.) Saturn was the Greater Malefic, so this meant that its signs of Capricorn and Aquarius where pretty horrible. Not necessarily weak, mind you, just trending for really wretched people. Jupiter was the Greater Benefic, so this boosted its signs of Sagittarius and Pisces.

But even in this system, so much depends on the disposition of the entire horoscope.

Which sign is weakest or strongest?

It depends......
 
Last edited:

IleneK

Premium Member
My points keep going over your head lol.


The zodiac has 12 signs, each is unique in that each is differently built with its own unique strengths and weaknesses.

Therefore, if we listed the characteristics of each of the 12 signs we would list many strengths and weaknesses. So now explain to me, how are there no signs that are weak or strong by our world's standards?


Because, as you say, ALL signs have BOTH strengths AND weaknesses.
It is not any more complicated than that.
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
Yony, Yes, I got that you were trying to pose a simple question. But there are no simple answers in the way you posed your question.

If you're just learning astrology, see if you can follow what I'm saying. If not, I am happy to clarify or elaborate. Let's start with modern astrology, the kind most people practice on this forum.

We're agreed on 12 signs. Beyond that you can read pop-schlock astrology sites about signs as baskets of static personality traits, and pick and choose which traits you like and dislike. Which turns your astrology into a highly subjective ego-centric activity. Obviously, Astrology For Adults gets way beyond this.

Astrology works with horoscopes for real people and events, not disembodied abstractions. Thinking of signs as disembodied abstractions may be an interesting activity, but astrology doesn't work that way.

In a horoscope some of those 12 signs will have planets in them, some will not. A sign's "strength" is only relative, depending upon (a) whether or not it has any planets in it, and if so, which ones. (b) Whether a sign is at a chart angle, notably the ascendant or MC. Throw in other non-planetary points if you wish, like the moon's nodes or the part of fortune; but basically look at planets.

If you do traditional western astrology, you would probably also consider (c) the sign's position on the house cusp. Angular strengthens it. The 12th, 6th, or 8th house weakens it. [Signs and houses are not the same thing, incidentally, except in medical astrology and in some modern astrology which normally I don't recommend.]

So signs are stronger or weaker by virtue of their contents, not intrinsically on their own. Put it this way: is your wallet more valuable if it has $1000 dollars in it and paid-off credit cards, or is it more valuable with $2 in it and maxed-out credit cards? One is "full" and the other is virtually "empty."

A sign has no intrinsic strength or weakness on its own, independently of its content and location in the chart.

You might think a fixed sign on its own is stronger than a mutable sign on its own, but astrology doesn't work this way. A sign tells you how or in what manner a planet operates, similar to an adverb or adjective in a sentence.

Suppose someone has a stellium in Pisces which includes the sun, Jupiter, and Venus; and Pisces is the sign on the AC (rising sign.) Leo, in contrast, is on the cusp of the 6th house, and has no planets, angles, or sensitive points in it.

Obviously Pisces is the strongest sign in this example, despite being the mutable water sign. It is angular. Jupiter is domiciled and Venus is exalted (traditional) in Pisces. Leo still acts like Leo in this person's 6th house of health, illness, work, and service, but it isn't a strong player. Moreover, because Leo's ruler, the sun, is in Pisces in the first house, that Pisces sun has a big say in how those 6th house matters function.

The formal way of saying whether or not a sign has any planets in it is calling it "tenanted" or "untenanted."

It actually works analogously to a landlord with 12 investment properties (signs.) Some of those properties are occupied by tenants who pay rent. Some of his properties are untenanted. The tenanted properties add to the landlord's financial strength. The untenanted properties do not. [Of course, the landlord might have bad tenants who trash his property and drag down his income, but that's another astrological story.]

So I hope you understand that signs are not inherently weak or strong on their own, in the modern astrology I and most people on this forum usually practice.

In Hellenistic astrology, if you want to get into that branch, signs are differentiated by virtue of the their planetary ruler, or planet that is domiciled in them. (See the beginning of Vettius Valens, Anthologies, for examples.) Saturn was the Greater Malefic, so this meant that its signs of Capricorn and Aquarius where pretty horrible. Not necessarily weak, mind you, just trending for really wretched people. Jupiter was the Greater Benefic, so this boosted its signs of Sagittarius and Pisces.

But even in this system, so much depends on the disposition of the entire horoscope.

Which sign is weakest or strongest?

It depends......

You still dont get what im saying lol.

I'm asking which planet is weakest in our cruel world... Each sign is ruled by one or more of the planets in our solar system. Natal signs ARE indeed our unique natal chart signs. We agree on that much.

Yet, what im taking about is the 12 characters (if you will) of the zodiac. What is so hard to understand about that?

Natal signs arent the same things as the 12 characters of the zodiac.

Natal signs is everyones unique natal signs. The 12 zodiac signs are 12 characters. I have a unique natal moon sign. But the zodiac sign known as cancer is just a character in what we know to be the zodiac.
 
Last edited:

Baat

Well-known member
In my opinion that isn't really a question that can be answered. As IleneK said, every sign has strengths and weaknesses, especially since you want to discuss the signs in concept rather than practice. To take a look at the original question (Pisces or Libra?) my practical experience with real people who have personal planets in those signs is that none of them are weak! I even met a triple Libra (sun, moon, Mercury) who had a reputation... not for weakness specifically, but just of being an absolute chameleon who seemed to be 100 different things to 100 different people. Depending on your personality it could come across as weakness (for example to observe them sweet talking someone they had gossiped about 10 minutes ago.) But then you look at the real world picture of his life and see how much you can achieve with sweet talk! He has slowly climbed the social ladder in multiple cities and now collaborates with musicians he once admired from afar.

I guess that's part of the problem of the question, strength and weakness are diverse terms, being weak in the right way can manifest as favorable results, and isn't that a kind of strength?
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
You still dont get what im saying lol.

I'm asking which planet is weakest in our cruel world... Each sign is ruled by one or more of the planets in our solar system. Natal signs ARE indeed our unique natal chart signs. We agree on that much.

Yet, what im taking about is the 12 characters (if you will) of the zodiac. What is so hard to understand about that?

Natal signs arent the same things as the 12 characters of the zodiac.

Natal signs is everyones unique natal signs. The 12 zodiac signs are 12 characters. I have a unique natal moon sign. But the zodiac sign known as cancer is just a character in what we know to be the zodiac.

Yony, now you're mixing planets and signs. Which is it?

Even so, the general rules I sketched out above for signs apply similarly to planets. Are you familiar with the traditional concepts of the almuten and lord of the geniture, in basically finding the strongest planet in a chart? The first looks at which planet has the most essential dignity according to a table like this one: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html. To which the second concept adds "accidental dignities" like the planets' house or its aspects.

In modern astrology some simply think the strongest planet is the sun or else the planet ruling the rising sign. Once we take off the training wheels, modern astrologers are very concerned with a planet's aspects. They may also be concerned with a planet in an intercepted sign being weakened.

So if the sun in Aquarius is in an intercepted sign squared by Mars-Pluto in Scorpio, the sun is weakened. For one thing, Mars and Pluto are domiciled. If Jupiter is in Sagittarius in the 10th house, that's a stronger planet than the sun in our example.

These are all ways to assess a planet's strength.

But I think what you're trying to say, is what I discouraged in my previous posts.

Because otherwise, you're in astrology kindergarten, as I tried to point out previously:

We're agreed on 12 signs. Beyond that you can read pop-schlock astrology sites about signs as baskets of static personality traits, and pick and choose which traits you like and dislike. Which turns your astrology into a highly subjective ego-centric activity. Obviously, Astrology For Adults gets way beyond this.

Consider, for example: if you happen to think emotions are a sign of moral weakness, you would downgrade the water signs. If your friend thinks emotions are the entire basis of human relations and that nothing is more powerful than love, she valorizes water signs.

But where would this get you? The entire exercise is too subjective to be taken seriously.

[Hint: if you feel misunderstood, try to explain your question or point more clearly. What do you mean by "character"?]
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
In my opinion that isn't really a question that can be answered. As IleneK said, every sign has strengths and weaknesses, especially since you want to discuss the signs in concept rather than practice. To take a look at the original question (Pisces or Libra?) my practical experience with real people who have personal planets in those signs is that none of them are weak! I even met a triple Libra (sun, moon, Mercury) who had a reputation... not for weakness specifically, but just of being an absolute chameleon who seemed to be 100 different things to 100 different people. Depending on your personality it could come across as weakness (for example to observe them sweet talking someone they had gossiped about 10 minutes ago.) But then you look at the real world picture of his life and see how much you can achieve with sweet talk! He has slowly climbed the social ladder in multiple cities and now collaborates with musicians he once admired from afar.

I guess that's part of the problem of the question, strength and weakness are diverse terms, being weak in the right way can manifest as favorable results, and isn't that a kind of strength?

I think Lao Tsu, in The Tao te Ching showed how seeming weakness and inaction can be the greatest strength of all.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Natal signs ARE indeed our unique natal chart signs.
We agree on that much.
Yet, what im taking about is the 12 characters
(if you will) of the zodiac.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Natal signs arent the same things as the 12 characters of the zodiac.
Natal signs is everyones unique natal signs.
The 12 zodiac signs are 12 characters.
I have a unique natal moon sign.
But the zodiac sign known as cancer
is just a character in what we know to be the zodiac.
SIGNS are neutral :smile:
PLANETS may have Weak or Strong PLACEMENTS
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
Yony, now you're mixing planets and signs. Which is it?

Even so, the general rules I sketched out above for signs apply similarly to planets. Are you familiar with the traditional concepts of the almuten and lord of the geniture, in basically finding the strongest planet in a chart? The first looks at which planet has the most essential dignity according to a table like this one: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html. To which the second concept adds "accidental dignities" like the planets' house or its aspects.

In modern astrology some simply think the strongest planet is the sun or else the planet ruling the rising sign. Once we take off the training wheels, modern astrologers are very concerned with a planet's aspects. They may also be concerned with a planet in an intercepted sign being weakened.

So if the sun in Aquarius is in an intercepted sign squared by Mars-Pluto in Scorpio, the sun is weakened. For one thing, Mars and Pluto are domiciled. If Jupiter is in Sagittarius in the 10th house, that's a stronger planet than the sun in our example.

These are all ways to assess a planet's strength.

But I think what you're trying to say, is what I discouraged in my previous posts.

Because otherwise, you're in astrology kindergarten, as I tried to point out previously:



Consider, for example: if you happen to think emotions are a sign of moral weakness, you would downgrade the water signs. If your friend thinks emotions are the entire basis of human relations and that nothing is more powerful than love, she valorizes water signs.

But where would this get you? The entire exercise is too subjective to be taken seriously.

[Hint: if you feel misunderstood, try to explain your question or point more clearly. What do you mean by "character"?]

Everyone has their own natal signs. Example:

Moon sign and pluto sign, sun sign and mars sign.

What you've failed to realize is that I'm simply just asking which zodiac character out of the 12 zodiac signs based off of its own unique traits would be OVERALL weakest in today's world?

I get that there are NATAL placements/natal signs. The type of signs I speak of are completely different. Im speaking of the concepts/character behind each and every zodiac sign. Simple as that.

Now please tell me, what on earth have I said anywhere in this thread has led you to believe I could have been speaking of anything else?
 
Last edited:

moonkat235

Well-known member
Everyone has their own natal signs. Example:

Moon sign and pluto sign, sun sign and mars sign.

What you've failed to realize is that I'm simply just asking which zodiac character out of the 12 zodiac signs based off of its own unique traits would be OVERALL weakest in today's world?

I get that there are NATAL placements/natal signs. The type of signs I speak of are completely different. Im speaking of the concepts/character behind each and every zodiac sign. Simple as that.

Now please tell me, what on earth have I said anywhere in this thread has led you to believe I could have been speaking of anything else?

I see what you're asking. You're trying to understand the sign's energy in its purest and most unadulterated form. I think waybread understands what you're asking and believes this is an unhelpful approach to astrological understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, either of you.

I think what she's saying is that packaging and compartmentalizing zodiac sign energy isn't useful to her, since you'll never run into a pure sign energy in the 'real world'. I think you're attempting to look at sign energy as if it exists in a vacuum, but also asking how that untouched energy would manifest in the world. It seems a little contradictory and like it might hinder your explorations into making genuine insights into natal charts and astrology, assuming that is your goal.
 
Top