Cinammon Sue said:
So why exactly did the traditional view of the elements have those meanings, as opposed to some other meanings. Which set of meaning is better?
Sue
Good Question Sue!
To state it plainly, the modern version of what the four elements mean, as it is presented in popular tarot literature, is
incorrect. The actual meanings, starting at least as far back as
Aristotle's study of them in
On Generation and Corruption, remained specific and constant until the modern era, when lack of knowledge led to errors. The system is in fact rather specific and exacting, with the four elements displaying specific patterns based on their formation from the
four powers (hot, cold, dry, wet). There is little room for subjective speculation. The modern versions can't possibly mean what they are suppose to, because the whole system collapses from incongruence.
I think the first thing that confuses modern people about the four classical elements is their names; Fire, Air, Water, Earth.
John Opsopaus writes,
"If we want to understand the Elements as spiritual entities, we must go deeper than metaphors based on material substances; we must grasp their essences. This was first accomplished by Aristotle in the century following Empedocles, who based his analysis on the four Powers (Dunameis) or Qualities, which were probably first enumerated by Empedocles. This double pair of opponent Powers, Warm versus Cool and Dry versus Moist, are the key to a deeper understanding of the Elements. Like the Elements, they must be understood as spiritual forces rather than material qualities (warm, cold, dry, moist)."
The names of the classical elements, Fire, Air, Water, Earth are not
literally describing actual fire, air, water. earth, but certain metaphysical qualities, which describe
specific tendencies in the way energies operate in the cosmos, and how these energies manifest in the mundane world. Until this point is clearly grasped, one can not truely understand the nature of the elements.
Aristotle's study of the elements in
On Generation and Corruption - Book II is essential to understanding them. Here is an online version:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/corruption/book2.html
One easy way I’ve found to begin to get your head around the elements is by looking at the traditional attributes of
reaction time and
duration.
[size=+1]
Elemental Fire has a fast reaction time, and long duration.
Elemental Air has a fast reaction time, and short duration.
Elemental Water has a slow reaction time, and a short duration.
Elemental Earth has a slow reaction time, and a long duration.[/size]
In the fiery character of the Choleric, the fast reaction time is manifested as impulsiveness, decisiveness, quickness to anger, and mental quickness at grasping ideas. The long duration manifests as vindictiveness, ability to see those quick decision through, a sense of pride and honor, and a need to control. This makes Cholerics the aggressive, controlling people they are, and they are the people who rise up to be leaders.
In the airy character of the Sanguine, the fast reaction time is manifested also as impulsiveness, quickness at grasping ideas, enthusiasm and wit. The short duration means that the Sanguine won’t hold grudges however. It also gives the Sanguine the tendency to get bored easily, and be fickle and restless.
In the watery character of the Phlegmatic, the slow reaction time manifests as calmness, frugality, and indecisiveness. The short duration makes the Phlegmatic lazy, timid, hesitant and unambitious.
In the earthy character of the Melancholic, the slow reaction time manifests as cautiousness, indecision, irresolution and being withdrawn. The long duration makes the melancholic introspective, deep, penetrating, unforgiving, and a tendency to dwell in the past.
M
M
