The four temperaments' is also a legit analysis.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e6/f0...429ad3c339.png
https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14307037_f520.jpg
https://www.erikthor.com/wp-content/...eraments-1.png
Printable View
The four temperaments' is also a legit analysis.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e6/f0...429ad3c339.png
https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14307037_f520.jpg
https://www.erikthor.com/wp-content/...eraments-1.png
Zodiac signs mean little if you do not know planetary positions and relationships. somebody can be eg. aries but have much stronger eg. leo or any other influences in his natal chart. most people are too superifical to understand laws of astrology.
I believe in Natal Chart.
No, not at all.
Actually someone added the elements in that image, what Hippocrates, a physician, originally proposed, was 4 different body fluids that would influence the humours (because supposedly some people would have more of one specific fluid than the other fluids in the body), so no, that doesn't have anything to do with zodiac signs.
I don't know what is older, probably that what you said, but yes, it is legit division of Zodiac signs.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/a1...411ca29f43.jpg
Nope. If someone can actually present an explanation as to why zodiac signs are of any importance, I would genuinely be willing to listen, no judgement here. But I've said this for years and nobody's ever been able to say anything beyond "this vague description somewhat resembles my personality so therefore it must be true", so I remain unconvinced.
No, but I like to laugh at those who do, so I pretend I'm interested.