Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, doesn't that alter the rest of the Zodiac for believers of astrology?

I've read that Pluto wasn't added to the Zodiac until after its discovery. How can something as profound as the belief that our time and place of birth in connection with the stars can influence us go through these kinds of additions and deletions (as in the case of Pluto) without becoming diminished or distorted? Thank you for your answers!|||Labels, like "planet" or "dwarf planet" for instance (don't get me started about the ridiculousness of the few categories in the IAUs scheme!), are just ideas in our head, they don't change anything. If your name was mpumphre in real life or Bill or Flower, it makes no difference, whatever your name you are still a human being, no label can ever change that.





We know what Pluto does and how it fits in with astrology, so that's all there is to it.|||I didn't know that bit about Pluto not being a part of the Zodiac until it was discovered. Interesting.





As far as I'm concerned, Pluto will ALWAYS be a planet in MY solar system. So there...|||no|||Ah i've been thinking the same thing lately!


well pluto is now known as a "Dwarf Planet" because of it being tiny but it still orbits the sun so i personally still count it in, some people dont|||yeah, i read this too and was like wtf..?


i'm not really a believer in astrology, i just think studying it is fun. i think that by astrological belief though, all of the space objects out there have SOME influence on us, not just the official planets. the objects listed are just the ones astrologers have figured out a connection with between them and our personalities/influences. even a few asteroids are listed as 'influencing your personality', so i don't think pluto will be taken out of the zodiac chart just for not being an official planet.|||No, doesn't alter. Pluto still has it's uses. Plus--Pluto is still there...it is not like it disappeared because the Scientific community decided it wasn't cool enough to be a planet.|||Ceres used to be a planet. It is still used in Astrology as a minor object.





Pluto is no longer a planet and as an astrologer I'm all too happy about it! I never considered it a planet, even though I've called it that for convenience. I never interpreted it as a planet, only as a minor object just like Ceres.





That being said, what ever made you think that we base our "belief" (I prefer study, since it's not a science nor a belief) of time and place of birth, on the stars? They are largely if not entirely based on the objects within our solar system. The additions are interesting, deletions haven't happened yet. Pluto is still used in astrology and depending on how open the astrologer is, they will either treat it like a planet or like a more minor object. THAT, is only down to the person who interprets it, not down to the study itself.





Now, for the additions: obviously 1700 years ago astrologers (who were the astronomers of their day) didn't know about objects like Ceres, Pallas Athene, Juno, Vesta, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Chiron etc. They simply didn't use them. You could argue that if those objects did have their effect, they must have been noticed? Yes, they must have. IF someone was looking for them. Sometimes, and especially in those days, people are happy enough with half an explanation and thus won't go looking for more. It often takes a VERY curious person to actually go looking and sadly enough no Astrologer was curious enough to wonder if there was anything missing. Not to mention that natal astrology (studying one's personality on the basis of their time and date of birth) is quite recent, and old astrology was more used to predict. And we all know how prophecies can be self-fulfilling. Knowing that, you can imagine why a medieval Astrologer was happy enough with the objects he already had to use: his prophecies always came true so why look any further?





Now, we COULD look for other objects through the influence they should exert, IF astrology has any grounds. The problem is, with all the objects already used and the depth of the study (which isn't as deep as you might think), astrologers now still don't think it's necessary to look for them. Simple as that. So we just wait for astronomers to find an object and only then we start looking what kind of effect that object has on us.|||%26gt;I've read that Pluto wasn't added to the Zodiac until after its discovery%26lt;





Obviously no one would have included it before its discovery, and it wasn't added to the zodiac, it was added to the solar system.





Horoscopic astrology was developed by the Hellenistic Greeks using the 5 visible planets plus the Sun and Moon. Uranus was discovered long before Pluto (1781 is the official date but it was probably spotted and incorrectly identified prior to that) as was Neptune (1845 but Galileo spotted it and mistook it for a fixed star). So it is puzzling why your reference to being "added to the zodiac" is limited to Pluto. It's also true the astronomers didn't add it to the solar system before they knew about it. How can a science so basic as astronomy go through these additions and deletions without becoming diminished or distorted?





The discovery of the three outer planets did have an effect on astrology that is too long and involved to go into here. Let's leave it that it upset the table of dignities. This is not an insurmountable problem as you suggest, but rather an indication that in astrology as in astronomy there are things we don't know. All fields of study have their ups and downs. Opinions of historical events change over time as well as our understanding of the applied sciences. Astrology is no different.|||Up until 1930 when Pluto was discovered, astrologers have been working for hundreds and hundreds of years without it. As a fairly 'traditional' astrologer myself I focus much more heavily on the traditional planets - i.e. not Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. That is not to say I do not use them at all. To make an analogy, if we were taking about cooking, I would say that the meat, pasta, veggies, etc. are the traditional planets and the seasoning is the the 'outer' planets. If you can cook well and have good fresh ingredients that's all you really need, but the seasoning definitely adds flavour.





Personally, I will work with the outer planets in exactly the same way as I have done up till now, and I would guess that most other astrologers will do the same. As far as traditional astrology goes, I guess it remains unscathed by the Scientists' demotion of Pluto!





Astrology is not the only field that has to adapt to new discovery and/or change. Just look at how Einstein's theories revolutionised what had become well established in the world of physics.