. Where's the arrogance in this? I'm sorry, I'm European, over here it is normal for people with different perspectives to discuss things.
"People don't know that when they are arrogant and skeptical against Astrology, they are basing, historically and episthemologically, their arrogance on this very argument."
I wasn't reffering to yourself when I mentioned arrogance, I rather complimented you for the mention of this Hume passage. And once you know the passage, you clearly could not be among the people that don't know it.
Once we are on a forum of astrology I supposed you believe in astrology, and I didn't think you would interpret it as referring to yourself. It would be a good thing if freedom of discussion was finally guaranteed in all continents, including Europe. You don't have to be inelegant, I wasn't towards yourself.
It seems we didn't read the same Critique of Pure Reason. In my version, Kant tries to go beyond the "in the mind" or "in the outer world" split by introducing his a priory synthetic judgement, and actually gave a shot at defending causality.
The idea is that causality is a thing of the mind that can be applied to mind-sciences like mathematics in an absolute sense but to the outer world only in a relative.
Kant focused on denying heavily dense metaphysic books of his time, that proved the existence of God and other things with arguments;
Nowadays people don't take his book much seriously because it's too metaphysical for our times.
However, since Kant the practice of separating "mind things" and "outer things" has being kept, and that is an issue.
There are inside sciences like Psychology and outer sciences like Physics -
but you can't mix it.
The rule of not mixing it simply sends to garbage thousands of history of humankind science&philosophy, including much of astrology and, of course, the whole of mythology.
Kant is not read seriously anymore, because modern society denies metaphysics, but he is still the metaphysical basis for denying metaphysics...
We could say that the common sense of a person under modern society deny metaphysics, and for that reason no one needs Kant - that would be denied altogether.
Modern common sense believes there is an "outer material world, reached by the senses" and an "inner world, high illusory, created by the brain". In ancient times, only the Epicureans, perhaps, believed in such non-sense.
And what makes you want to bring a glass of water? And what will happen when you bring it, if anything?
The example was to connect the inside and outside and show that inward experience can't be disconnected from the so called "outer world of the physical senses". All this thing of naming an "outer world", fruit of the "senses" is in itself very grumpy, too aristotelic to be considered skeptic.
Kant's idea was never of being skeptic, afterall, but to create a new sort of metaphysics that forbided theology&mysticism and yet allowed natural sciences...
Since Christianism there were many philosophers that tried to save a part of science&philosophy from being heretic and in exchange of this accept to forbid or ridicularize other kinds. Kant is part of this unfortunate history, which even when wins, harms.
As I see it, astrology is quite alive and kicking. It could have perished when the explanations attached to it became outdated. But it did not. Why? Maybe because astrology works quite well without those theories?
Astrology have always been more practical than theoretic, indeed. But almost all ancient philosophy never had the chance to become outdated, the books were burned after the dogmas emerged and near nothing was left.