The tradition of astrology goes back quite far in history. The symbolisms for Mercury, Jupiter, etc all come from the past. I hypothesize that the reason the planets were so named/classified was due to the observation of the ‘effects’ they had over time.
Time of war? Hmmm, that red planet is over in this part of the sky again, just like last time. Since Mars was the god of war, we’ll name that orb Mars. And sure enough, when we do astrology using Mars, the interpretations can come out pretty accurately!
Then in present day, it seems like astronomers just kept classifying planets we discover with other mythological rulers, without verifying the astrological effects first. Considering most astronomers are not also astrologers, that doesn’t surprise me.
Hmm that new one over there? We haven’t used Vesta yet. Let’s call it Vesta.
So then why do astrologers, when we’re doing astrology with these new planets, attribute characteristics of the Vesta or Sedna or Chiron (and many other) myths over the effects these planets? How do we know that astrologically Chiron, the hero of the wounded healer myth, is always present in ‘wounded healer’ type situations and events (I’m picking on Chiron here) when we didn’t have any long term historical astrological data to support the naming in the first place- it was just picked at random by astronomers? Am I missing something? Aren’t we doing this a bit backwards and potentially with some nasty confirmation bias?
[And on another note: the relatively new body Pluto wasn’t named by astrologers, but it seems to match the mythological meaning of the Pluto character so perfectly. How did that happen??]