astrology

[iambiguous]

Surrep is right that I get irritated. I get irritated by flat-earthers too. Its so simple to find out the truth, and so much effort is spent on avoiding it. Please, just, let it lie or study it. But... the Shadow. You cant do astrology and run away from yourself at the same time.

1] Is the Earth flat?

2] Does the placement and the movement of stars and planets and other celestial bodies impact on our personality at birth? Are they pertinent in making decisions regarding some of the most important events in our life?

Let's ask the scientists.

Now, in regard to the flat-Earthers, has the truth of their claim been established by science beyond all doubt?

But what of the claims of the astrologers? What have the scientists been able to come up with here in order to demonstrate the veracity of their claims.

And, if some have, link me to them.

As for doing astrology, what does that entail in regard to the decisions that you make over the course of living your life? Cite some examples of what knowledge you have been able to glean from these celestial bodies. And why and how you are convinced that there is no other possible explanation for what did in fact unfold.

Again, I'm not dismissing astrology as necessarily false. After all, an explanation for the very existence of existence itself conjures up all sorts of really, really mysterious possibilities. God being the most common. But mere mortals have also attributed "reality" to such surreal things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream world and worlds inhabited by "oracles".

[promethean75]

Again, I'm not dismissing astrology as necessarily false. After all, an explanation for the very existence of existence itself conjures up all sorts of really, really mysterious possibilities.

that's a good open-minded point, biggs. it's along the lines of: if we can't explain how everything works, we might be wrong about how something in particular works. so for all we know, there might be something to the astrology. ah but here's the thing. part of that system of how everything works must involve a particular circumstance that makes us unable to know how everything works (cue things like falsifiability, fallacious inductive reasoning, etc.). in that case, we might be right about astrology, but wouldn't know how, in which case we'd have made a lucky guess. the problem with lucky guesses is minimal in the case of astrology - i mean it's not the kind of thing where we'd suffer tremendous dangers if we got it wrong... it's not like sending a shuttle into space. but it does allow charlatans to pretend they know what's going on with it, and that's offensive to an honest intellectual. we honest intellectuals don't like to guess, see, so we don't bother with shit we can't be sure of. and we sure as shit don't say 'see, i told ya so' when the stock market crash happens to coincide with the position of mercury.

other than that, i will tell you that astrology is probably true because i happen to have a very powerful chart. if i had a bunch of lame signs and placements instead, i'd tell you it was false. i'm sure you understand.

[surreptitious75]

astrology is the way of attaining the profoundest self knowledge and most people would rather die than know themselves in any profound way

Most people dont associate astrology with self knowledge because they dont regard it as a serious discipline
But most people also dont want to look into the abyss because they are afraid of what they might see there
They think that psychology or philosophy or religion are ways of understanding the abyss rather than astrology
And so those are the areas they would avoid if they had an irrational fear of self knowledge and not astrology

[iambiguous]

In Defense of Astrology
by HILARY CARITO in the Lesley College Public Post

On the surface, astrology can at the very least be used to describe the aptitudes and imperfections that a person has naturally been given at birth.

Or is the surface all there is?

While that may seem a rather deterministic way of living, astrology is merely information; it is up to the person what he or she does with the information after being given it.

So, again, we are back to pinning down where to draw line between the information that is fundamentally attributable to these "celestial bodies", and what "I" am able to do with this information that is not fundamentally attributable to them. Which is why I would need someone who believes in astrology to take me through their day and explain where they themselves draw the line in regard to the particular behaviors they choose. Especially given a context in which those who do not share their own sign choose something entirely different. Finally, in a context in which those behaviors comes into conflict over value judgments.

If a doctor tells you have an illness, you do not blame yourself for acquiring it, but it is your choice now whether you let the illness kill you or choose to work towards healing.

So, the fact that you have this illness -- how much is that is attributable to the position and movement of celestial bodies? How would someone who believed in astrology situate the current COVID-19/coronavirus outbreaks in their frame of mind.

The same logic can be applied to astrology. For example, a Libra may be told she is lazy by nature. Does this excuse the Libra, as she says, “Ha! That’s true, I am lazy,” to keep on being this way? Instead, it may present the Libra with the opportunity to keep an eye on her habits, thus giving her a new voice that says “You could easily just be lazy today but instead you’re going to try something different.”

Bingo!

It's somewhat analogous to those who argue that God made them who and what their are so who are mere mortals to tell them to be otherwise. Or, as with the existence of commandments in most religious scriptures, is there something about the position and movement of heavenly bodies that allows -- requires? -- believers to choose behaviors that are more acceptable? More likely to play to their own advantage in whatever astrologers conceive the afterlife to be?

[felix dakat]

http://www.archai.org/wp-content/upload ... ssue-1.pdf

World Transits 2000–2020 An Overview by Richard Theodore Tarnas (born February 21, 1950) a cultural historian known for his books The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View and Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View. In 1968 Tarnas entered Harvard, graduating with an A.B. cum laude in 1972. Tarnas is professor of philosophy and psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and is the founding director of its graduate program in Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness.

[Fixed Cross]

"So, the fact that you have this illness -- how much is that is attributable to the position and movement of celestial bodies? How would someone who believed in astrology situate the current COVID-19/coronavirus outbreaks in their frame of mind."

The virus broke out exactly as the apocalyptic conjunction of Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Pluto the astrologers have been anticipating for years occurred.

As far as personal afflictions with it, of course thats in the personal transits.

The universe, what a character!!

[iambiguous]

The universe, what a character!!

Indeed. If it didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. After consulting with the stars of course.

You know, however that might work.

[Fixed Cross]

[iambiguous]

Of course he's just paraphrasing Michel de Nostredame.

[Destiny]

Iambigus can you tell my youngest brothers astrological? I made the report. For a chart, thank you!

grabbit.png (126.02 KiB) Viewed 1990 times

[iambiguous]

I dont "believe" in astrology. Unlike you Ive done the decades of research, being a man raised by scientists. You're the believer here, my dude. If you would have a shred of scientific instinct in you you'd have accepted my challenges. The same goes for anyone who presumes to question things but doesn't present the available data for experimenting.

What does not "believing" in astrology mean? As that pertains to a particular context that most of us here will be familiar with.

Also, take the "decades of research" there in turn. Scientific research.

In other words, a set of circumstances involving human interaction. There we can focus in turn on the distinction that I make between astrology in the either/or world and astrology in the is/ought world.

Astrology as it relates to the laws of nature, the "in fact" empirical world around us, the logical rules of language, mathematics etc., and astrology as it relates to the components of my own moral philosophy: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

People who think astrology has no bearing on reality think that it doesn't matter if one is born in summer or winter, by day or by night, by full or new moon, even though both scientific evidence and common sense tell us that these things heavily determine the nature of the person.

Again, I'm less interested in what people think or believe or claim to know about astrology and more in regard to what they are actually able to demonstrate -- scientifically, philosophically -- that all rational men and women are obligated to believe about it. Linking us, for example, to actual experiences and experiments they themselves have had, have tried or are familiar with.

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you imagine astrology fitting into your own life, given that which is of most importance to me philosophically --- morality here and now, immortality there and then.

And go into some detail regarding the behaviors that you chose in a particular context of late. The existential relationship between "I" and the celestial bodies.

[iambiguous]

I dont "believe" in astrology. Unlike you Ive done the decades of research, being a man raised by scientists. You're the believer here, my dude. If you would have a shred of scientific instinct in you you'd have accepted my challenges. The same goes for anyone who presumes to question things but doesn't present the available data for experimenting.

What does not "believing" in astrology mean? As that pertains to a particular context that most of us here will be familiar with.

Also, take the "decades of research" there in turn. Scientific research.

In other words, a set of circumstances involving human interaction. There we can focus in turn on the distinction that I make between astrology in the either/or world and astrology in the is/ought world.

Astrology as it relates to the laws of nature, the "in fact" empirical world around us, the logical rules of language, mathematics etc., and astrology as it relates to the components of my own moral philosophy: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

People who think astrology has no bearing on reality think that it doesn't matter if one is born in summer or winter, by day or by night, by full or new moon, even though both scientific evidence and common sense tell us that these things heavily determine the nature of the person.

Again, I'm less interested in what people think or believe or claim to know about astrology and more in regard to what they are actually able to demonstrate -- scientifically, philosophically -- that all rational men and women are obligated to believe about it. Linking us, for example, to actual experiences and experiments they themselves have had, have tried or are familiar with.

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you imagine astrology fitting into your own life, given that which is of most importance to me philosophically --- morality here and now, immortality there and then.

And go into some detail regarding the behaviors that you chose in a particular context of late. The existential relationship between "I" and the celestial bodies.

Also, also, as noted on another thread:

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." NASA

Where does astrology fit into all of this? Given that 95% of the universe is not even "normal matter"?

Also, also, also, are we going to do this or not?

[iambiguous]

Astrology Critics Don’t Even Know What They’re Criticizing
The urge to cry ‘pseudoscience!’ may be about something else entirely
Stephanie Georgopulos
Nov 15, 2019

Astrology has also been described by many as the study of — not the science of — cycles. In his book The Lunation Cycle, Dane Rudhyar writes that:

"Astrology can be defined as a technique for the study of life-cycles. Its main purpose (is to establish) the existence of regular patterns in the sequence of events constituting man’s inner and outer experience; then, to use the knowledge of these patterns in order to control or give meaning to these experiences…Indeed, the study of cycles — that is, of periodical activities in nature, human and otherwise—is the root of all significant knowledge, be it scientific or philosophical. And the study of cycles is a study of time."

No getting around this of course. Natural cycles explain many things. From the four seasons weatherwise here in Baltimore to the wet and the dry seasons in other parts of the world. Sunspots on the Sun, the shifts in Earth's magnetic field, ice ages. And so many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cycles

And they impact on human interactions in many profound ways. They precipitate consequences that can be both predicted and measured. We can prepare for them.

The question here then is how are the cycles embedded in things that astrologers predict and measure able to be demonstrated as in fact something that all rational men and women are obligated to defend.

Ah, but my "thing" with astrology -- as with philosophy, science and religion -- shifts the discussion instead to the world of identity, conflicting value judgments and political economy. What can astrologers tell me about the existential interaction between the celestial bodies and the behaviors that I choose on this side of the grave as that becomes embedded in the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave?

Given a particular set of circumstances that the astrologers themselves would be familiar with.

[iambiguous]

Astrology Critics Don’t Even Know What They’re Criticizing
The urge to cry ‘pseudoscience!’ may be about something else entirely
Stephanie Georgopulos
Nov 15, 2019

It’s also what astrologer Stephen Arroyo calls a “language of energy.” Fluency in this language gives one the ability to identify, and correct for, unconscious patterns in our thoughts and behavior. Like therapy, meditation, or any tool that provides the potential for expanded awareness, it’s only as useful as a person is willing — willing to spend the time, willing to make the effort, willing to accept the premise that we don’t always have the clearest picture of who we are, nor do we have a perfect understanding of why we behave the way we do.

Really, I challenge anyone here who subscribes to astrology on any level to intertwine these points into actual experiences from their own lives.

You have acquired this "fluency" in regard to the "language of energy". How then are the constructed words applicable to behaviors you choose in the either/or world? And, of more importance to me, to the reactions of others who criticize the behaviors that you choose in regard to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.

Note how through astrology in these contexts, you have in fact achieved an "expanded awareness". Of what exactly? How specifically do the celestial bodies facilitate your acquiring a "clearer picture of who you are".

And in regard to a particular context in which human behaviors do come into conflict over moral and political value judgments, how might the celestial bodies allow one to acquire a more perfect understanding not only of why we behave as we do but how perhaps we ought to behave as well.

[iambiguous]

Astrology Critics Don’t Even Know What They’re Criticizing
The urge to cry ‘pseudoscience!’ may be about something else entirely
Stephanie Georgopulos
Nov 15, 2019

Pop quiz: Is it rational to dismiss outright anything one has not taken the time to understand? To attack something based on one’s own flawed assumptions about what it claims, rather than on its source material?

Yes, that is one way to put it. I don't pretend to have a sophisticated understanding of astrology. And I wouldn't doubt at all that many of my assumptions about it are flawed.

But let those who do claim to have a sophisticated, unflawed understanding of it, take their assumptions out into the world of human interactions and note the manner in which astrology is able to react in a sophisticated and unflawed manner given the existential juncture that is of most interest to me: identity, value judgments and political economy.

And then this part: https://astrotalk.com/astrology-blog/li ... gy-behind/

Is it rational to assert that science alone can explain all we need to know about life on earth, despite the fact that today’s universally accepted theories directly contradict those that preceded them? What about the fact that most scientists will happily admit that there are things we don’t yet and may never understand (at least, not through the scientific method)? Is it rational to demonize astrology when accepted fields of social science are in the midst of a reproducibility crisis?

Sure, that's a reasonable set of assumptions as well. So, let astronomers and astrologers focus in on a particular aspect of the universe and give their own explanations for why the celestial bodies behave as they do. But not many astronomers then take that leap from celestial bodies to the bodies that we ourselves make the trek in from the cradle to the grave. Bodies out in a world that encompasses acquiring a sense of self, an "I" that often comes into conflict morally and politically with others who sense themselves to be very, very different. It is here that astrology is of most interest to me.

Is it rational to believe that, as products of the universe ourselves, we are capable of measuring it without mistakes, bias, or limitation? Most of us barely have the capacity to be objective about our own mothers, let alone Mother Nature.

Okay, okay. But in regard to astrology given a specific "situation" that we might find ourselves in, what is it rational to believe? And how is this belief then reasonably demonstrated?

[Fixed Cross]

hey people only stopped "believing" astrology when there tsjurttsj wes saying ok we burn u if you don't quit teaching it.
When science overtook the tschurch in the late 1800s astrology rose up right along with it and will keep rizering .....

people people don't want it to be true like truth is so many times a bully.

Astro bully.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Pop quiz: Is it rational to dismiss outright anything one has not taken the time to understand? To attack something based on one’s own flawed assumptions about what it claims, rather than on its source material?

Yes, that is one way to put it. I don't pretend to have a sophisticated understanding of astrology. And I wouldn't doubt at all that many of my assumptions about it are flawed.

Notice how he uses the word 'sophisticated' which the writer of the article did not use. The writer of the article talks about flawed assumptions. The OP of this thread is a dismissal, which includes mind reading of people who believe in astrology. That's someone who feels confident dismissing something he now admits he doesn't know much about. That's what the article is talking about.

He is trolling. He could ask for justifications from astrologers in his OP, with dismissing and mind reading first. What he is doing is starting off with a charged post intended to trigger defensiveness and off balance responses. If he was interested, and knows little, he could just ask for information. But he does not do this. He is not interested. He wants something else.

But let those who do claim to have a sophisticated, unflawed understanding of it, take their assumptions out into the world of human interactions and note the manner in which astrology is able to react in a sophisticated and unflawed manner given the existential juncture that is of most interest to me: identity, value judgments and political economy.

And here suddenly astrology must be unflawed? And note the bizzare language: Let those who claim to have a sophisticated....etc. As if they bear some onus.

And then this part: https://astrotalk.com/astrology-blog/li ... gy-behind/

Is it rational to assert that science alone can explain all we need to know about life on earth, despite the fact that today’s universally accepted theories directly contradict those that preceded them? What about the fact that most scientists will happily admit that there are things we don’t yet and may never understand (at least, not through the scientific method)? Is it rational to demonize astrology when accepted fields of social science are in the midst of a reproducibility crisis?

Sure, that's a reasonable set of assumptions as well. So, let astronomers and astrologers focus in on a particular aspect of the universe and give their own explanations for why the celestial bodies behave as they do.

And here he slides from social scientists to astronomers, and he doesn't seem to understand that astrology does not weigh in on why celestial bodies behave as they do.

Every time what he considers an objectivism is approached it is done with a mass of assumptions on his part. When this is pointed out, none of that matters. He is allowed to use his belief system to make claims about the internal motivations and experiences of all the people in a group, but other people must demonstrate to all rational people whatever they believe. He has no onus, for some reason. He regularly and systematically slides the points made by others into ones convenient to him: straw men, red herrings, weaker versions of their positions and more fallacies.

At the same time his litmus test for what all rational people should be convinced by is whether he is convinced by something. Someone who uses fallacies and feels no need to justify his positions and judgments and mind reading is perhaps not the best first litmus test of rationality.

[iambiguous]

hey people only stopped "believing" astrology when there tsjurttsj wes saying ok we burn u if you don't quit teaching it.
When science overtook the tschurch in the late 1800s astrology rose up right along with it and will keep rizering .....

people people don't want it to be true like truth is so many times a bully.

Astro bully.

Sure, if this is what you believe. And, in believing it, that more or less becomes all the "demonstration" needed to make it true. In your head.

But it doesn't have much to do with the points I raise about astrology above.

It doesn't bring astrology out into the world of human interactions revolving the things that interest me: identity, value judgments and political economy.

It doesn't delve into how astrologers assess the existence of "I" on the other side of the grave.

And you never have responded to my post above:

I dont "believe" in astrology. Unlike you Ive done the decades of research, being a man raised by scientists. You're the believer here, my dude. If you would have a shred of scientific instinct in you you'd have accepted my challenges. The same goes for anyone who presumes to question things but doesn't present the available data for experimenting.

What does not "believing" in astrology mean? As that pertains to a particular context that most of us here will be familiar with.

Also, take the "decades of research" there in turn. Scientific research.

In other words, a set of circumstances involving human interaction. There we can focus in turn on the distinction that I make between astrology in the either/or world and astrology in the is/ought world.

Astrology as it relates to the laws of nature, the "in fact" empirical world around us, the logical rules of language, mathematics etc., and astrology as it relates to the components of my own moral philosophy: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

People who think astrology has no bearing on reality think that it doesn't matter if one is born in summer or winter, by day or by night, by full or new moon, even though both scientific evidence and common sense tell us that these things heavily determine the nature of the person.

Again, I'm less interested in what people think or believe or claim to know about astrology and more in regard to what they are actually able to demonstrate -- scientifically, philosophically -- that all rational men and women are obligated to believe about it. Linking us, for example, to actual experiences and experiments they themselves have had, have tried or are familiar with.

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you imagine astrology fitting into your own life, given that which is of most importance to me philosophically --- morality here and now, immortality there and then.

And go into some detail regarding the behaviors that you chose in a particular context of late. The existential relationship between "I" and the celestial bodies.

[iambiguous]

Pop quiz: Is it rational to dismiss outright anything one has not taken the time to understand? To attack something based on one’s own flawed assumptions about what it claims, rather than on its source material?

Yes, that is one way to put it. I don't pretend to have a sophisticated understanding of astrology. And I wouldn't doubt at all that many of my assumptions about it are flawed.

Notice how he uses the word 'sophisticated' which the writer of the article did not use. The writer of the article talks about flawed assumptions. The OP of this thread is a dismissal, which includes mind reading of people who believe in astrology. That's someone who feels confident dismissing something he now admits he doesn't know much about. That's what the article is talking about.

He is trolling. He could ask for justifications from astrologers in his OP, with dismissing and mind reading first. What he is doing is starting off with a charged post intended to trigger defensiveness and off balance responses. If he was interested, and knows little, he could just ask for information. But he does not do this. He is not interested. He wants something else.

But let those who do claim to have a sophisticated, unflawed understanding of it, take their assumptions out into the world of human interactions and note the manner in which astrology is able to react in a sophisticated and unflawed manner given the existential juncture that is of most interest to me: identity, value judgments and political economy.

And here suddenly astrology must be unflawed? And note the bizzare language: Let those who claim to have a sophisticated....etc. As if they bear some onus.

And then this part: https://astrotalk.com/astrology-blog/li ... gy-behind/

Is it rational to assert that science alone can explain all we need to know about life on earth, despite the fact that today’s universally accepted theories directly contradict those that preceded them? What about the fact that most scientists will happily admit that there are things we don’t yet and may never understand (at least, not through the scientific method)? Is it rational to demonize astrology when accepted fields of social science are in the midst of a reproducibility crisis?

Sure, that's a reasonable set of assumptions as well. So, let astronomers and astrologers focus in on a particular aspect of the universe and give their own explanations for why the celestial bodies behave as they do.

And here he slides from social scientists to astronomers, and he doesn't seem to understand that astrology does not weigh in on why celestial bodies behave as they do.

Every time what he considers an objectivism is approached it is done with a mass of assumptions on his part. When this is pointed out, none of that matters. He is allowed to use his belief system to make claims about the internal motivations and experiences of all the people in a group, but other people must demonstrate to all rational people whatever they believe. He has no onus, for some reason. He regularly and systematically slides the points made by others into ones convenient to him: straw men, red herrings, weaker versions of their positions and more fallacies.

At the same time his litmus test for what all rational people should be convinced by is whether he is convinced by something. Someone who uses fallacies and feels no need to justify his positions and judgments and mind reading is perhaps not the best first litmus test of rationality.

Uh-oh. The thread is no longer about astrology. It's about Curly insisting that once again, with or without a nudge from the stars, I'm the problem here. I'm "trolling".

No context of course. Just another caustic intellectual contraption. A thumping...by way of fulmination.

Okay, I challenge him to bring these accusations to a new thread. Either in the philosophy forum or in the rant room. We can explore each other's point of view intelligently and civilly...really making an effort to understand what the other is trying to say in regard to particular contexts. Or we can reconfigure that into an all out polemical brawl.

I'm good either way.

[Karpel Tunnel]

But let those who do claim to have a sophisticated, unflawed understanding of it, take their assumptions out into the world of human interactions and note the manner in which astrology is able to react in a sophisticated and unflawed manner given the existential juncture that is of most interest to me: identity, value judgments and political economy.

One further point I was going to make.
Astrology is yet another set of systems, not one thing. IOW it is followed by a lot of different people with a lot of different values. You cannot generate values, certainly no objective ones based astrology. It is not objectivist in this sense at all. Once you have your values, objectivist or not, you can certainly apply them to readings or make judgements of other people in some astrological context, but you cannot say doing X is immoral and justifiy this with astrology. Someone probably does this, somewhere, but there really is no basis for it. Identity is also subject to the metaphysics of the user. I would say most sophisticated astrologers would see tendencies to certain qualities in birth charts and that individual qualities DO change over time due to experiences (there is a whole set of ways of charting this). So, what one is like is not fixed and even given birth chart X rather different people could arise, given their economic class, the presence of other siblings, the culture they were born in and how this would interact (fit) with their personality tendencies...and so on. At an abstract level two people born at the same time and place could be described similarly, would have similarities, but a lot would be contingent. Political economy would be part of that, though many astrologers probably don't think about that so much, unless that is a large part of their individual viewpoint. Just like a lot of psychologists, certainly in the past, tended not to mull so much over on that wing of human experience and the role it might be playing in current psychological issues. Just as they did not think much about cross-cultural issues.

But if we look at this 'interest' and then compare it to the OP, I see someone either going about a search for knowledge about something he knows little about in an extremely poor manner - just throwing his assumptions out as if they are correct enough to justify rudeness and mindreading - or that the presented goal is not the real goal. Often people can lie to themselves about this kind of thing.

'I was just.....'

Seems highly unlikely. The OP has all the earmarks of trolling. It probably seemed safer, giver the way astrology is viewed by many. So on this topic, rather than others where he is expressing his 'interest' he was more honest up front. He's not interested. And he might get to frustrate or annoy some people who believe in something he does not.

[iambiguous]

Debunking Astrology – The Planets Just Aren’t That Into You
At the A Science Enthusiast website

What is Astrology and how does it (supposedly) work?

If you haven’t been living under a rock your whole life, you are probably aware of the daily horoscope section in your local daily. Here you’ll find list of daily predictions for the twelve zodiac-signs (or sun-signs; there is a subtle difference but the two are often used interchangeably). These predictions claim to broadly predict what your day would look like, and may also contain some suggestions on activities you should embrace and/or avoid.

Okay, the first thing that pops into my head when I hear the word "predict", is the manner in which it seems [somehow] to subsume the future into the present [somehow] subsumed in the past.

If over and again you predict the future and over and again the prediction comes true, how, in an autonomous world, to explain that other than in suggesting that the future is only what it could ever be.

Now, with astrologers, I'm presuming that they embrace some measure of human autonomy. After all, if not, then the predictions themselves would become but necessary manifestations of the laws of matter. They would predict only that which they could never not predict.

So, free will in place, the prediction is based on the position of the celestial bodies preconfiguring one set of human interactions instead of another.

But: How exactly? And isn't it true that to the extent the celestial bodies are embedded in what the future must be, that can only detract from our own free will?

So far, I have lived on three different continents and as far as I can remember, this section has been the daily staple of pretty much every single newspaper. Some people do not leave for work without preparing themselves for the day according to their horoscope, while others just read it for fun and are marveled at its accuracy. The problem though is that it is completely bogus.

Okay, is there anyone here who connects the dots between the present and the future by way of daily horoscopes? Or, if you just read them for fun and marveled at their accuracy, cite some specific examples. How detailed were they?

I will Google my own horoscope [as an Aries] and check out the first site: https://www.astrology.com/horoscope/daily/aries.html

AUG 29, 2020: Some magic could happen to you today, but you'll have to slow down in order to truly experience it. Specific details are what makes a day special, and if you whisk through things too quickly, you will never notice them! When someone gives you a compliment, will it go unnoticed because you're too busy checking your phone? Don't let that happen. Look up, look out at the world, and engage. Your life is not as harried as you're making it out to be.

Almost nothing of this is applicable to me. But it is vague enough that dots can be connected to some things, sure.

And though astrology is a lot more complicated than daily horoscopes, 1/12th of the world's population are Aries. So, is this then "generally" applicable to all of them?

[iambiguous]

Debunking Astrology – The Planets Just Aren’t That Into You
At the A Science Enthusiast website

Astrology has no rational basis and is not backed by any kind of evidence or testable theory. It is the prime example of pseudoscience, which has successfully seeped into popular culture. Don’t believe me? Ask someone their zodiac-sign and, without dwelling too much into statistics, they will most likely know the answer. Ask them what it means to belong to that sign and either they will have absolutely no idea or they will tell you something about their ruling planet (which doesn’t really mean anything either but makes people feel smart).

And that's before -- way before -- we get to the part that is of interest to me: discussing with those who do have a sophisticated understanding of astrology how the celestial bodies factor into our moral and political prejudices on this side of grave and the fate of "I" on the other side of it. Are they "prejudices" because they are necessarily impacted on by the stars and the planets and the moons? Does that make them at least up to a point, beyond our autonomous control? And, in astrology, is there the equivalent of reincarnation or Heaven or Nirvana on the other side?

How does this "up there"/"out there" work?

I will spare you boring details about the origins and history of Astrology, because you can find those details elsewhere. Briefly, the sky is divided into twelve regions and each region is represented by the zodiac names. Essentially, astrology is rooted in the principle that celestial bodies, such as planets and the moon, can exercise influence in various spheres of human activities. The question is how? According to astrological explanation, the sky is divided into twelve regions, each region represented by a zodiac and the position of the sun (and sometimes other celestial bodies; astrology has many flavors) in of these regions, depending on the time and place of an individual’s birth decides his or her sign, which in turn is a predictor of the various personal and professional aspects of the individual’s life,

Again, forget about how all of this propels you into the future in regard to the things you think, feel, say and do. My interest lies in astrology's role insofar as these things are reacted to by others in such a way that conflicting goods become embedded in human interactions. Do the celestial bodies favor one rather than another moral and political prejudice? How does that work?

It is actually not the craziest idea in the World (maybe that’s why people still tend to believe it? Not sure). The reason I say this...is because one of the arguments made in the fundamental text of Astrology, Tetrabiblos (English version may be downloaded here) by Ptolmey is that, since the planetary bodies can affect physical changes on Earth and the life it harbors (tides, temperature, seasons etc.), therefore the method of prediction is valid. Historically speaking, to someone in 2nd century AD this is a fairly good explanation, given that astronomy was just starting to develop as a field of research and astrology and astronomy were quite interchangeable (and many people continue to do so). This is where the pseudoscience aspect comes in.

Here's the thing. While astrologers may not be able to explain definitively why and how this is the case, those who scoff at astrology are not able to argue definitively that while celestial bodies do have some impact on the lives we live this does not include the stuff embedded in horoscopes and more sophisticated assessments. We just don't anything at all about these relationships definitively. It would be like establishing definitively that God does not exist. So, from my frame of mind, the obligation lies far more with those making the claims for something rather than against it.

[Destiny]

I am a Pisces but astrology is evil, but I still look like Pisces and I am also emotional. (like Pisces)

How can we ignore it. To get to heaven we have to stay pure.

[unnatural]

I don't believe in any of it, but it can be uncannily descriptive. But that may be just some kind of cognitive fallacy at work.