The clockwork of Astrology

Therese

Well-known member
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'm not skeptical about astrology. I finished my above post with "Not because astrology doesn't work, but because of how causality works". That means that in my experience, astrology works, but I do not accept causality as an explanation for it. 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.

[FONT=&quot]
Kant will argument that there's a strictly separation of "inside the mind" and "out, by the senses" and causes only exist inside the mind; never we are able to see a "cause" in anything outside - it works well for the paradigm of Newton/Galileu proceedments, but on real life we are always dealing with causes inside and outside.
[/FONT]
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.

If we consider the world as an observation and calculum of different visible objects just like we imagine Newton and Galileu used to do, the argument works perfectly.
But when I say "I'll bring you a glass of water", we clearly know that we are causing something. So, causes does exist!

And what makes you want to bring a glass of water? And what will happen when you bring it, if anything?

Within the cause-and-effect model, there are always multiple (possibly an infinite number of) causes that bring about a situation, just as there are usually multiple effects of any cause - but we will recognize only a few. It's a matter of choice how we narrow down the cause(s) that produce(s) a certain effect, and which effects (and how many) we will judge to be produced by the same cause(s).

In real life, there is no such thing as a single, isolated cause producing a single, isolated effect. I consider "X and only X causes Y and only Y" an abstraction, no matter what names you will call me.

We could say, with dramaticism, that this snooker scene put an end on Astrology. And Metaphysics, in a lot of the world.

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 It could have perished when the explanations attached to it became outdated.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?
 

aldebaran

Well-known member
Plotin stated that defying the results of astrology is, obviously, ridiculous; however, the way the astrologers described the phenomena "one planet starrying at each other", etc was absurd; the Planets were rather like letters showing the meaning of events.

Symbolic and therefore synchronous astrology is old, ancient philosophy was so diverse that for each group a different interpretation from scratch was needed.

Both the material influence or the synchronity can bear space to human freedom, or not.

I suppose a very radical material influence (perhaps like Stoicism?) would not differ much from a notion of total Synchronity.

Total synchronity is specially difficult to harmonize with freedom, but some developed the concept that events are necessary, yet free; like, we are from eternity constrained to chose freely exactly what we happen to chose.

I find an elegant attempt to consider freedom(or, perhaps, each different kind of freedom) part of the whole cosmological scheme - just as there is mars, moon, pisces, capricorn, mercury, there is freedom, one or more kind; and the world would be partially free by the very existence of multiple possibilities, which would be a definition of freedom.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Astrology is mind-boggling. Those who don't want their minds boggled are inclined to dismiss it as subjective delusion, to avoid having to at least admit "there's something to it". :biggrin:
 

david starling

Well-known member
A clock can tell us WHEN something is going to happen, but doesn't CAUSE it to happen. Same with the astrological clock, which is entirely dependent on chronometry.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Plotin stated that defying the results of astrology is, obviously, ridiculous; however, the way the astrologers described the phenomena "one planet starrying at each other", etc was absurd; the Planets were rather like letters showing the meaning of events.

Symbolic and therefore synchronous astrology is old, ancient philosophy was so diverse that for each group a different interpretation from scratch was needed.

Both the material influence or the synchronity can bear space to human freedom, or not.

I suppose a very radical material influence (perhaps like Stoicism?) would not differ much from a notion of total Synchronity.

Total synchronity is specially difficult to harmonize with freedom, but some developed the concept that events are necessary, yet free; like, we are from eternity constrained to chose freely exactly what we happen to chose.

I find an elegant attempt to consider freedom(or, perhaps, each different kind of freedom) part of the whole cosmological scheme - just as there is mars, moon, pisces, capricorn, mercury, there is freedom, one or more kind; and the world would be partially free by the very existence of multiple possibilities, which would be a definition of freedom.

Very elegantly stated. Are you a writer or philosopher by profession?
 

aldebaran

Well-known member
. 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.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Each mind creates an "outer-world" for itself. When enough minds reach agreement on what they have created for themselves, they label it "Reality".
 

david starling

Well-known member
[/Quote]


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.[/QUOTE]

Rumor has it they still exist in the underground vaults of the Vatican.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Mars does not cause me to become angry. I do. Just 'cause.

No one is denying that things have causes; I just asked a thought-provoking question: What if....the planets don't cause anything?

In modern science there is a thing called "parsimony". It is considered to be one of the essential attributes of a new theory or model. Basically it says that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is probably the truest.

And an astrology without planetary causation of human phenomena best meets that test of simplicity.
 

petosiris

Banned
A clock can tell us WHEN something is going to happen, but doesn't CAUSE it to happen. Same with the astrological clock, which is entirely dependent on chronometry.

Do you do astrology based on time or do you do it based on planetary placement? Yes, the second is related to the first, but you are looking for planetary causation. Astrology without causality is not astrology, because all the power is given to something else than the planets.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Do you do astrology based on time or do you do it based on planetary placement? Yes, the second is related to the first, but you are looking for planetary causation. Astrology without causality is not astrology, because all the power is given to something else than the planets.

Not so. Is power (?) necessary?

There is an alternative to power.
 
Last edited:
Top