Part I
I have read dozens of fine, informed posts about the use and prevalence of whole signs in horoscope charting in the Hellenistic period. To be noted especially are those of scholars such as Dr. Gansten. I’ve heard the spirited lecture of Ms Houlding where she proposed, significantly, that there is zero evidence for WS use in Hellenistic astrology. This occasioned a fine historical debate in podcasts and on this Skyscript forum about the evidence in Manilius and V Valens. The contrasting proposal of Dr Hand and Mr. Brennan (CB), is that these astrological texts support the prevalence claim that VV almost entirely used whole sign (WS) houses as did other astrologers of that period.{2} The topic is hotly debated. Of course it’s crucial, that historical facts be established, and the work of Dr. Hand and Robert Schmidt and others has been pioneering in bringing these to light through translations. But there’s another aspect to the issue—which will be the topic of this paper.

I am not a scholar of the Hellenistic period (or the later ones); I don’t read Greek, but deal with books and papers in English. My comments are as one trained in philosophy. What I’m saying now does not question the worth of investigations in establishing historical facts. They are crucial. But I’m struck by how some discussants place so little emphasis on basic issues such as the following. {1}
1) Is the practice well-based on sound understanding of the fundamentals; on what understanding? On what mathematics?
2) Is the practice useful?
3) Is the practice productive of fine interpretations?
4) Would the practice today {based on 1) to 3)} be ‘best practice’—be recommended?

I argue that the prevalence –if there were such—of WS thinking and practice is quite irrelevant to answering these questions since they are about values, not historical facts. These would apply even if evidence were presented which suggests that WS-based practice was found, for example, with a certain frequency, in Valens{3} or whomever.
If one answers these questions, as some presenters may appear to (in the lectures cited, and others’ lectures as well), based on facts about usage, one has committed one or more of these several fallacies:
The most obvious, acknowledged by CB, is
a) the fallacy of appeal to authority; there is also
b) the fallacy of appeal to original teaching/practice; and
c) the fallacy appeal to longevity of practice.

It’s important to be clear here. I’m NOT saying it is a fallacy to argue from chart and ms evidence that Valens (or whomever) had a particular practice; that his text says, “Do x.??? That would be an historical and factual argument—which might be sound. The fallacies a), b, and c) are to infer from that fact to another type of judgement (value), that VV (or whoever) had the best system, one we do well to use today.

I present this analogy from the history of medicine, which may be helpful. Galen was a great figure (ca 200 CD) in the history of western medicine. Galenic medicine has a long history of theory and practice. So, for example, bloodletting was recommended by Galen and top physicians as late as the 19th century {4}. That fact, however, has no bearing on the claim ‘Bloodletting is very often useful, and good to be practiced today’. (It still is, in limited circumstances.) This throws light on the third fallacy, appeal to longevity. Longevity does NOT in fact properly show either usefulness or productiveness. (This point relates to the ‘2000 years of use,’ pro-WS argument.)
One might claim there are years of observations; but these occurred with bloodletting, and they seemed to show its usefulness. Of course there were deaths, but they were attributed (sometimes rightly) to the disease itself. George Washington, when ill near the end of his life, was subjected to extensive bloodletting. He died within a few days. The problems of inference from old observations (or 2000 years’ worth are several: a) biased observations and b) unsound understanding (Galen believed there is a superabundance of blood, in disease) of fundamentals. (I’m taking one point from Galen and not disputing that some other points are valuable contributions.)
=========
=========
{1} Martin Gansten makes a similar point, Feb 13. “…using whole-sign houses is one thing and prescribing them (the way some astrologers do today) is another.??? In this essay, I’m elaborating on the ‘point(s) being missed.’ Thanks to Prof. Gansten for the quote.

{2}Some of the material referenced is as follows: the early lecture of CB in Nov 2015, “12 Reasons Why Whole Sign Houses are the Best House System???; the Deborah Houlding lecture last September 2022, “The Sign, the Whole Sign, and Nothing But the Sign … Really????; which dealt extensively with factual matters and, proposed, significantly, that there is, in Hellenistic horoscopy (texts, mss), zero solid evidence for the use of WS houses.

Part II
Here we reach the problem of originalism and its fallacy: The procedure of taking, e.g., what Ptolemy said, and arguing from its originality to its merit or usefulness. This is an issue in some religions and some occultists. There is concentrated focus on What do the ancient mss say? That is a valid historical and scholarly question. However truth, merit, usefulness, is a different matter; to argue toward those is, in general, a fallacy.

For example, it may be true that the ms says, Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets (Ex 34:29), but is that the best account of events, based on history, not religious commitment? Further if those tablets did indeed contain the ten commandments, as literalists say, is that a good set of rules to live by today? That’s an entirely different question (though maybe the answer is ‘yes’). I’m saying it’s a fallacy to go from “It is true that VV said xx. {Calculate the ascending degree like so}??? To “xx is true {That is the best or correct way to calculate this degree.???

When I compared history of medicine, I was taking a skill that most of us admit has developed; that was and is based in an organized body of knowledge which has advanced. I suggest that this might apply to astrology. Or is it a religion, one denomination of which bases itself on what Ptolemy and Valens said and did— one based on originalism, fallacy b)? Is there a reason to rule out the possibility of progress during a period of over 500 years even if our goal is to recapture and practice ‘Hellenistic Astrology’? Firstly, take the use of quadrants. There are refinements around calculating the MC since Valens; even in the rare cases he put it in by degree, he had no trigonometry-based precision {3}. If we leave the Hellenistic period, are not other advances possible?—time based systems, ‘parts,’ outer planet ‘influences’, midpoints? Of course, later practitioners’ observationsmay be biased as well, but is there any reason to attend only to the observations of the earliest Hellenists? Can there not be development within traditional astrology? We do well to consider John Frawley in his Carter Memorial Lecture, 2009, “The distinction between what is traditional and what is not is often seen as a temporal division. Old stuff is traditional; new stuff is not. This is an error – a fact that I see more clearly now than when I was writing The Real Astrology. Traditional astrology did not finish at some point in the 18th century. It is alive and well today.??? {5}

My conclusion is NOT directly aimed at purely historical or textual arguments. They must surely continue. It’s directed to arguments about merit and ‘best practice’. In debates it’s often productive to go as far as possible in agreement with the opponent--about the facts, about practices (as established) in the Hellenistic period and later periods. Then one can proceed to disagree as to logic and conclusions. After certain texts are agreed, I propose a more focused tactic against the ‘prevalence’ and ‘let’s all do it' arguments: “Let’s agree certain particular facts are true. But what value judgments do you claim arise from them? Where you appeal to authority and originalism, it seems you are committing a number of fallacies. You have not made your case for merits or productiveness (‘best practice’) at the present time.??? {total about 1300 words)
==============

{3} Neugebauer in Greek Horoscopes says only three VV charts in that collection show degree of ascendant and midheaven (GH. P 184). {4}Gerry Greenstone, MD, The history of bloodletting, Issue: BCMJ, vol. 52, No. 1, January February 2010, Pages 12-14.
{5} https://www.johnfrawley.com/what-is-the ... -astrology

Thanks halw - I hope this thread of Yours leads to a healthy discussion and helps to answer some central questions in the Philosophy of Astrology.

At the moment I try to find a personal subjective answer to the Question:"Why does Astrology work in the hands of Professionell Astrologers - With what forces and Archetypes are we working, when we delineate a chart? - Gods" - but that is off topic in this thread.

Volker