Do you believe in astrology?
--
I don't know whether it's legitimate or not, and I doubt it's really all one way or the other--it's probably a mixture of both.. I think astrological patterns are a hard thing to surmise, since they're vague/abstract rather than physically observable, and given society's penchant for mythos it's likely that there's some fiction strewn into the various astrological systems.
But I think it's unfortunate that because of today's scientistic, materialistic worldview many people dismiss astrology as having any merit out of hand. The only legitimate way to really know whether there's anything to it is to get into the field and see if it seems to match reality.
Yes, it's a subjective assessment, and necessarily so, but sometimes that's the only way to assess a model of the world, and that doesn't make it automatically invalid.. to say that any subjective assessment is invalid is to discount our intelligence as human beings or to limit us to something akin to bookeepers with regard to how we're allowed to us our intelligence and trust it.
The same people who say that astrology is illogical/irrational or defies science or common sense would claim the same thing gravity if it weren't demonstrably real, because of its quality of being action at a distance.
Yes, astrology goes one step further by ascribing personalities or emotional energies or whatever to the planets, but there's no good reason that these attributes can't be real, fundamental properties of things that can influence us over a distance, rather than being merely abstractions applied to organic beings as we sensorially observe them..
Richard Feynman had some interesting things to say about "what is magnetism" here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM&t=28s , and I think the necessary lack of some kind of classical foundationalism he points to can be applied to the concept of planets having emotional energies that affect us at a distance as well, as in, they just exist and we don't necessarily understand why or have to to accept it.
All I know about astrology personally is that my astrological sign (Aquarius) matches me so well that when I read a book on it once I was actually getting goosebumps. Skeptics say, of course, that they just word it all vaguely enough that it could apply to anyone, but the idea that this must account for all of its apparent applicability is merely a convenient assumption.
The argument that the star signs of the zodiac are invalid nowadays because of precession isn't a strong one either, because we don't actually know that it's the constellations themselves that have influence over us--that idea actually seems silly to me because constellations are just imagery arbitrarily invented by us by connecting the dots across star patterns that would look completely different from any other part of the galaxy and from which a million other patterns could have been invented instead.
It's more likely that star signs aren't based on the stars at all, but rather on what time of year a person is born at for some other reason, such as the weather or the position of the earth relative to the sun. It's completely plausible that people could have correctly inferred a pattern regarding star signs (i.e. a relationship between date of birth and personality) based on generations of experience, while the supposed *reason* for this relationship (or at least an ancillary thing attached to it) is completely mythological.