Plotinus, generally thought to be the founder of NeoPlatonism, reasoned by philosophy that astrology doesn't exist. If you look up his name on a search engine, his writings were later edited into six volumes, one of which partly concerns astrology. But a summary from Wikipedia on him has it:
Against causal astrology
Plotinus seems to be one of the first to argue against the still popular notion of causal [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology ]Astrology[/link]. In the late tractate 2.3, "Are the stars causes?", Plotinus makes the argument that specific stars influencing one's fortune (a common [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic ]hellenistic[/link] theme) attributes [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality ]irrationality[/link] to a perfect universe, and eliminates moral turpitude. He does, however, claim the stars and planets are [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul ]ensouled[/link], as witnessed by their [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28physics%29 ]movement[/link].
---------------
V:
If you read the original a lot makes plain sense in a philosophical kind of way. Since he believes the stars and planets are ensouled and have Life within them, and since his philosophy believes in an ultimate Perfection behind all Creation, why would stars or planets have "negative" influences? Why would they want to - since they have self-control? And if they throw of what we would call vibes, or effects, as a virtue of their consciousness, why would these ever change, or worsen? The stars themselves are not 'worsening'.
It might be better understood from getting an idea of his concept of The One underlying all things, again from Wikipedia:
The One
Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity or distinction; likewise it is beyond all categories of [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being ]being[/link] and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience, and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects, and therefore is beyond the concepts that we derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing", and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism ]Stoic[/link] doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence), but "is prior to all existents". Thus, no attributes can be assigned to the One. We can only identify it with the Good and the principle of Beauty. [I.6.9]
For example, [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought ]thought[/link] cannot be attributed to the One because thought implies distinction between a thinker and an object of thought. Even the self-contemplating intelligence must contain duality. "Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency." [III.8.10] Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action to the One [V.6.6], rather if we insist on describing it further we must call the One a sheer Dynamis or potentiality without which nothing could exist. [III.8.10] As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere [e.g. V.6.3], it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God. At [V.6.4], Plotinus compared the One to "light", the Divine [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous ]Nous[/link] (first will towards Good) to the "Sun", and lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could exist without any celestial body.
The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world -- but not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, al
RE: Plotinus on Astrology
Hi Venetian
From what I have read Plotinus said 'The course of the stars indicates what is going to happen in particular cases, but does not itself cause everything" (Roman philospher Plotinus On Whether the Stars are Causes, 3rd Century AD.)
According to Nicholas Campion in his book The New Astrology under the title The Stars as Causes and Influences, Campion says..."The belief that the stars and planets 'cause' events on Earth is due to a modern misunderstanding of Aristotle's theories of planetary motion. Aristotle, who was a pupil of Plato, believed that God's ideas descended from heaven to earth via the planets. The primary cause was God, and the secondary causes were the planets, through whom God's ideas passed, providing a link in the chain of communication between humanity and heaven. When astrologers talk of the planets 'causing' events on Earth they are using a shorthand derived from Aristotle. the idea that stars exerted physical pressure on the Earth was put forward by Pliny the Elder in the 1st century AD but was disputed by his contemporaries. Before Pliny, Cicero had argued that the planets were much too far away to exert any influences on earth."
Recent developments in astrophysics are beginning to show that the influence of celestial stars and planets upon one another may bepossible by electromagnetic fields- Percy Seymour, Senior Lecturer in Astronomy at Plymouth University."
Oneway of understanding why astrologyappears to workisCarlJung's theory of synchronicity, whereby a modern psychological astrologer would not think the planetSaturn is causing the events here on earth, but that coincidences are occurring of the nature of Saturn. As the planets and luminarieshave been observed sinceabout 2000 BC - and an oral tradition could have existed before then - we only know the Chaldean astrologers existed because we have written archeological evidence in the form ofclay tabletsof the cuneiform, many of which are in the British Museum, plus biblical references.
In the 1960's Belltheorised that two particles that had once been connected, would always be connected even if they became widely separated,that an unknown force, of which space, time and motion are all aspects, continues to link separate parts of the universe that were once united. This seems to connect with Plotinus writings 'One principle must make the universe a single creature, one from all'.
I guess from this you could say we are all one - yes I'm going into a What the Bleep mode and had betterfinish before I go to sleep at the desk.
I still don't know what to think, but its quite useful thinking about it occasionally.
Luv Binah
x