It's true: men don't talk about astrology together. They talk about it with women. And when it's brought up amongst each other, men often say something similar to what your dad said to you.
I think though, that even if his intent was to do so, his explanation, however true it might be, doesn't necessarily discount the practice of astrology. I don't personally pay attention to my Sagittarius-ness, but I can't help but see the similarities between the critiques people have against it and the critiques people have toward other spiritual or religious practices.
Your case for astrology sounds very similar to the arguments I give myself for following a spiritual path—humility, self-reflection, compassion for others, etc. And you touched on a strong reason to respect astrology: it creates space for less patriarchal ways of thinking about ourselves and people in general.
I don’t necessarily “believe” in astrology as any hard and fast rule, but like you I’ve found it to be almost 100% accurate in my life. I’m an Aries and a hot head and etc. etc. My friends and family all live up to their signs. That said, I have noticed that I tune out when people are too reliant/excited about the subject. Is that an Aries trait too 😂
Thanks, as always, for the shout-out! This reminds me that I should read Eleanor Cattons novel The Luminaries. She uses astrology in rather complex ways in the novel, or so I am told. I should read it so I can review it on my Whitmans Toolbox sub-newsletter and assess its validity as a writer's resource. A writer, of course, cannot afford to be a scientistic rationalist unless they are one of those very-scientific writers like Miroslav Holub. It's a great resource for a writer since it can help build realistic characters.
It was always quaint growing up in the Bay, where all the Chinese restaurants had information on the Chinese zodiac but one never encountered any public information on the Western zodiac. Kind of went through the same thing you did when I realized that after a thorough process of elimination, the only explanation for why I got along with some people and didn't get along with other people was their zodiac character traits: we Cancers can't tolerate Aquarius, though I tried. Not sure what to think about the whole "Saturn being in the second house" stuff, but I also recognize that astrology was one of the most fundamental characteristics of humanity for thousands of years. We used the stars for so much apart from just this, and it had a role unto itself. (Of course in Christianity, the Three Kings couldn't have found baby Jesus without the stars) Denying its relevance amounts to historical revisionism.
Heritage matters, whether it's from one's own culture or something universal like astrology. And even if there is a justification to call it an "old superstition," our need for it has not been satisfactorily replaced in the "Age of Reason," nor has any attempt really been made to do so. (I wouldn't classify astronomy as an attempt) And the evidence for that is all around us. Acknowledging this need would be a confession that astrology is more than just an "old superstition," so it's easier to view it as something useless like a wisdom tooth that only has one purpose: being removed. But all that does is brush it under the rug. As a result, "the issue" remains unresolved to this day.
Astrology was once seen as a science because of the calendar, which predicted the seasons based on the stars and was 100% accurate. Everyone knew the seasons (and everything else) was controlled by the gods, who after all had created the world. The stars, being in the heavens (where the gods dwelt) provided information about what the gods did that was 100% accurate in the case of the calendar. It seems reasonable that the heavens could provide information about the gods intent in other departments, hence astrology.
As belief in the pagan gods diminished, the mechanism astrology moved from indicators of the gods will to difficult to understand "forces" or influences by the objects themselves.
When it was discovered that the Earth revolved about the sun, it was revealed that the seasons were purely a geometric artifact. Poof went the mechanistic support for astrology, and it ceased being a science.
It continued to have use as a conceptual framework for difficult to categorize characteristics and it used to this day. I suppose it can "work" in a way analogous how a placebo works. The pain relief is real even if there is no actual chemical agent present. I don't believe in astrology, but have had useful discussions with astrologers because they can often be very observant and see things in ways you might not, possibly because their astrological perspective makes such insights easier to achieve.
Ehhh I think astrology is more about hormones than anything else. The sun & moon signs are all essentially tied to glandular functioning. Pisces, the fish, for example, would be oestrogen. The first of the hormones. Life came from the ocean & soft, shell-less eggs or cells. Ovocytes. That's why it's the last sign, the other signs came after & got attached in serial order one on top of the other. That's just my reading as someone who thinks pre-industrial societies weren't all just stupid. They just experienced things & tried to explain them in whatever manner seemed to make sense to them.
It's true: men don't talk about astrology together. They talk about it with women. And when it's brought up amongst each other, men often say something similar to what your dad said to you.
I think though, that even if his intent was to do so, his explanation, however true it might be, doesn't necessarily discount the practice of astrology. I don't personally pay attention to my Sagittarius-ness, but I can't help but see the similarities between the critiques people have against it and the critiques people have toward other spiritual or religious practices.
Your case for astrology sounds very similar to the arguments I give myself for following a spiritual path—humility, self-reflection, compassion for others, etc. And you touched on a strong reason to respect astrology: it creates space for less patriarchal ways of thinking about ourselves and people in general.
I don’t necessarily “believe” in astrology as any hard and fast rule, but like you I’ve found it to be almost 100% accurate in my life. I’m an Aries and a hot head and etc. etc. My friends and family all live up to their signs. That said, I have noticed that I tune out when people are too reliant/excited about the subject. Is that an Aries trait too 😂
Thanks, as always, for the shout-out! This reminds me that I should read Eleanor Cattons novel The Luminaries. She uses astrology in rather complex ways in the novel, or so I am told. I should read it so I can review it on my Whitmans Toolbox sub-newsletter and assess its validity as a writer's resource. A writer, of course, cannot afford to be a scientistic rationalist unless they are one of those very-scientific writers like Miroslav Holub. It's a great resource for a writer since it can help build realistic characters.
It was always quaint growing up in the Bay, where all the Chinese restaurants had information on the Chinese zodiac but one never encountered any public information on the Western zodiac. Kind of went through the same thing you did when I realized that after a thorough process of elimination, the only explanation for why I got along with some people and didn't get along with other people was their zodiac character traits: we Cancers can't tolerate Aquarius, though I tried. Not sure what to think about the whole "Saturn being in the second house" stuff, but I also recognize that astrology was one of the most fundamental characteristics of humanity for thousands of years. We used the stars for so much apart from just this, and it had a role unto itself. (Of course in Christianity, the Three Kings couldn't have found baby Jesus without the stars) Denying its relevance amounts to historical revisionism.
Heritage matters, whether it's from one's own culture or something universal like astrology. And even if there is a justification to call it an "old superstition," our need for it has not been satisfactorily replaced in the "Age of Reason," nor has any attempt really been made to do so. (I wouldn't classify astronomy as an attempt) And the evidence for that is all around us. Acknowledging this need would be a confession that astrology is more than just an "old superstition," so it's easier to view it as something useless like a wisdom tooth that only has one purpose: being removed. But all that does is brush it under the rug. As a result, "the issue" remains unresolved to this day.
That's my two cents anyway.
So, I'm really an 'aquarius' when I thought I was a 'pisces'??? 🥰
Astrology was once seen as a science because of the calendar, which predicted the seasons based on the stars and was 100% accurate. Everyone knew the seasons (and everything else) was controlled by the gods, who after all had created the world. The stars, being in the heavens (where the gods dwelt) provided information about what the gods did that was 100% accurate in the case of the calendar. It seems reasonable that the heavens could provide information about the gods intent in other departments, hence astrology.
As belief in the pagan gods diminished, the mechanism astrology moved from indicators of the gods will to difficult to understand "forces" or influences by the objects themselves.
When it was discovered that the Earth revolved about the sun, it was revealed that the seasons were purely a geometric artifact. Poof went the mechanistic support for astrology, and it ceased being a science.
It continued to have use as a conceptual framework for difficult to categorize characteristics and it used to this day. I suppose it can "work" in a way analogous how a placebo works. The pain relief is real even if there is no actual chemical agent present. I don't believe in astrology, but have had useful discussions with astrologers because they can often be very observant and see things in ways you might not, possibly because their astrological perspective makes such insights easier to achieve.
Ehhh I think astrology is more about hormones than anything else. The sun & moon signs are all essentially tied to glandular functioning. Pisces, the fish, for example, would be oestrogen. The first of the hormones. Life came from the ocean & soft, shell-less eggs or cells. Ovocytes. That's why it's the last sign, the other signs came after & got attached in serial order one on top of the other. That's just my reading as someone who thinks pre-industrial societies weren't all just stupid. They just experienced things & tried to explain them in whatever manner seemed to make sense to them.