Astrological Compatibilism: Fate and Free Will

Finding a Middle Road Between Determinism and Metaphysical Libertarianism.

[Astrology is] the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.

That’s what the Merriam-Webster online dictionary says anyway. And I think that sounds about right – but it certainly leaves some pretty crucial questions unanswered, like: Does astrology’s efficacy rest solely on the concept of synchronicity (C.G. Jung’s theory of meaningful events, occurring simultaneously, in the absence of any causal connection)? If so, can we say that astrology is useful in the process of individuation or self-actualization? And is this a process one chooses to undertake?

Or, is there something even weirder going on? Could it be that astrology is mechanically causal in nature? Does the zodiacal sphere act on the æther of the planetary spheres which acts through the four Empedoclean elements in the sublunary sphere where its effects are finally made manifest in the lives of human beings on the surface of the terrestrial sphere? Is astrology predicated on the idea that the native is held captive in a cosmological prison from which they may never escape? And, if so, is it possible to learn to interpret the significance of geometrically configured planets, distributed in signs and houses, and to progress the hands of the cosmic clock in an effort to actually predict the future?

In some way or other, each of these questions are contingent upon the answer to a more primary question:

Is astrology deterministic or libertarian (in the metaphysical sense, not the political)?

What’s all this astropsychology stuff?

Like most 21st century astrologers, my initial exposure to astrology was to the psychological and character analysis varieties, initially championed by the likes of Alan Leo and Dane Rudhyar in the 19th and 20th centuries. I found Rudhyar’s synthesis of depth psychology and astrology – his “algebra of archetypes” – to be particularly satisfying. I also liked the idea of viewing astrology as a symbolic path leading to the integration of the psyche – and I still like this idea. His, and many other 20th century astrologer’s approaches generally did nothing to offend my rational sensibilities, as they stripped astrology of what I initially saw to be its superstitious fatalism; they left behind a practical system by which one might become the most ‘realized’ version of one’s self. Sounded nice to me – and it still sounds nice.

Then I started studying traditional astrology.

In an effort to erect my astrological edifice on a firm foundation, with an intact historical and developmental perspective, I decided to go back to the beginning of the tradition as we know it: Hellenistic Astrology. This was the first time the four basic elements of astrology – planets, signs, houses and aspects – were arranged into a workable system; a system which has actually changed remarkably little since the first few centuries of the Common Era.

While taking Chris Brennan’s excellent course on the subject, I was confronted with the stoic determinism of Vettius Valens and Manilius; as well as the Aristotelian, mechanistic causality of Claudius Ptolemy who believed that cosmic forces physically acted upon the Earth, setting cycles in motion on the terrestrial sphere. Granted, there were still some ancient astrologers who took a more symbolic approach, such as Dorotheus of Sidon, but it would seem that, by and large, the astrological worldview was one in which the stars both caused and signaled events on Earth and the very best thing we could do is try to stay abreast, if not one step ahead, of the cosmos and to be mindful of its auspices.

So, how does this play out in our astrological studies?

When we study a person’s natal chart as it relates to their biographical chronology, we tend to see placements, configurations, house significations, transits, etc. that seem to symbolize major events in the native’s life.  Some of these events are oddly literal and specific in their actualization. For example, let’s say that the native has Mars, out of sect, in Aquarius on the 3rd house squaring Uranus in Taurus on the 6th house. When the native was 26 years old, this manifested in the native losing their leg below the knee in a motorcycle accident occurring during a quick run to the corner store to purchase a bag of XXTRA Flamin’ Hot Crunchy Cheetos® for their sister (don’t worry – this is just a totally made up, super-extreme example). From the perspective of astrological theory, we note that the 26th year is a 3rd house profection year; the 3rd house signifies short trips and siblings; Aquarius rules the shins/calfs; Mars is potentially violent and extra malefic when contrary to the sect in favor (plus Flamin’ Hot Cheetos® are pretty martial, right?); Mars is decimating (“on the 10th”, or overcoming by a superior square) Uranus, which rules Aquarius and can signify unexpected phenomena and is in the 6th house of injuries.

After you’ve studied example after example of features in a natal, horary or mundane chart playing out on the terrestrial sphere and in a native’s life, you start to get the impression that there’s something underlying astrology that goes beyond mere synchronicity. In time, this impression might itself cause you to question whether the geometrical distribution of the planets on the ecliptic has any bearing on terrestrial events. Until one day, after one too many “synchronicities”, it dawns on you and you ask yourself: Can I actually predict the future with astrology? It’s almost like finding out that the Ouija board you’ve been goofing around with is actually haunted.

Compatibilism as a middle road.

If you’re like me, and you’ve come to astrology from a more psychological perspective, the apparent dissonance between free will and determinism may seem disorienting at first – but I think a synthesis may be achieved. According to the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, “Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.” As of right now, I have come to admit for some pretty hard determinism, yet I also believe that we have free agency, at least on the intellectual and spiritual planes – neither of which can be irrefutably linked to a physically causal mechanism, per se. Simultaneously, however, it is obvious that many actions have a causal effect. The example of a billiards break comes to mind, as a sort of microcosmic model – but, on some level, one must choose to play billiards.

This is certainly a very nuanced problem and philosophers have been at it for a long time. But, ultimately, I think this is a both/and situation rather than an either/or. Why can’t pockets of determinism exist within pockets of libertarianism which are nested within pockets of determinism and so on? At the current level of my understanding (and this is subject to change, as I think it is important to maintain flexibility and to cultivate a sort of epistemic humility), I don’t see why these paradigms can’t be reciprocally informative and simultaneously exist, nested in a domain-based state like those Russian Matryoshka dolls.