Muses holding hands with Hermes
Following the reasoning that we have outlined so far, (dis)consideration means both taking into account multiple factors, as well as grounding, and care. A conclusion that is reached, a pondering.
The etymology of the term here will help us greatly: consideration descends from the Latin verb cōnsīderātiō. Let us see: cōnsīderō: con- (prefix: cum, "with; along") + sīder- (sīdus, "star; constellation").
It means: to examine, to weigh, to contemplate; to keep in mind, to bear in mind; to look upon, to think of somebody as; to provide for; to take into account.
Interesting: to provide for… Fascinating.
The prefix form of the preposition cum ("with"), i.e., con-, was used in compounds to indicate a being or bringing together, and it was also used in compounds to indicate the completeness, perfecting of any act, thus giving intensity to the signification of the simple word.
Another dictionary states: to look at closely, regard attentively, inspect, examine, survey; to ponder maturely, reflect upon, contemplate, meditate; to take care.
The second part – sīdus, sīderis – stems from ancient Greek σίδηρος (sídēros). Some derive this from Proto-Indo-European *sweid-, whence Latin sūdor, Greek ἱδρώς (hidrṓs), English sweat.
Another dictionary provides: a group of stars, constellation, heavenly body; a heavenly body, star, group of stars, constellation; the sky, heaven; fig., of celebrity or prosperity, the heavens, stars, heights; a star, light, beauty, glory; an ornament, pride, glory; a season; climate, weather; regions; grave, storm; in astrology: a star, planet, destiny.
Yet another dictionary claims: stars united in a figure, a group of stars, a constellation; a heavenly body, a star; the sky, the heavens; as the summit or height of fame, fortune, success; night; as a comparison for anything bright, brilliant, shining, beautiful; ornament, pride, glory; as a term of endearment, "my star"; season of the year; climate, weather; with allusion to the influence which the ancients believed the constellations to have upon the health or the destiny of men, star, destiny.
If we take that term as a synecdoche of (the) cosmos, we will come to a fascinating conclusion. Before, however, let us look at synecdoche: from Greek συνεκδοχή (synekdochē), "simultaneous understanding", from the verb ἐκδέχομαι ("to take or receive from another", δέχομαι "to receive"), συνεκ-δοχή ("understanding one thing with another", hence in rhetoric: synecdoche: "an indirect mode of expression, when the whole is put for a part").
We could as well label it a metonymy, there is not enough difference there for it to matter.
To take into consideration is therefore to complete, to perfect the "to provide for" by taking (the other) into account.
What have we reached here? What have we figured out?
We return to the point where the cosmos is formed by what forms it. To consider is to be considered. To be considered it is necessary to consider.
And if we are cum sidera, with the stars, then we are in the cosmos. It is impossible not to be part of it. Heliocentrism is here to stay. But heliocentrism means precisely putting the stars in the centre, since the Sun is first of all a star.
To be considered, or to consider, amounts to becoming cosmic. Thus, everything that concerns one, concerns the cosmos. Obviously there is a concern threshold, but this does not make the situation any less cosmic just because it has not been able to overcome the manifestation threshold. It just didn't manifest (itself (as such)).
(I hope whoever reads this entry understands the reference made in the heading.)
I think the (perception of) separation between considering and being considered, subject and object, has been a fundamental obstacle of (Western?) thought. I think we really have trouble understanding a framework other than observer → observed, subject → object, etc.
ResponderExcluirAnother thing this kind of tendency to keep everything separated has caused is our feeling humans are somewhat separate from nature (indeed, ludicrously, superior).
Indeed, you are right. Except only from modernity onwards this is true. The ancient thought of nature as culture, viz., nothing was "natural", everything had reasons and motivations to be as it was, as if everything had a subjectivity, agency, etc. Modernly, nature appears as the other of civilization, of culture, hence its inferior. Modernity, thus, emerges from the navigations that led to colonizing the Americas, notably central and southern first by the hands of strongly catholic countries (i.e. Christian, I mean to say M. Weber was not thorough enough, as capitalism is not just a fruit of protestantism, but all Christianism), the expulsion of Islamism from the Iberian Peninsula, etc. So, modernity had to invent "the other" to colonize it, putting this (supposed) uncultured, uncivilized, etc., in place to reign over it. And Nature came in handy. Because, you follow, I know, before there was only physis, the physis, the nature of man was to create these things we now deem cultural, just as much as man's "animal noise" was lógos, language, but language only in as much as the frog croaks and the bird tweets. So culture was first invented as the difference from animality (which coincides with the intensifying discussions about the (holy) spirit, its place on the trinity, etc.) and then it was raised to a higher position, better valued, then nature is lowered and opposed to it. I hope that makes sense.
ExcluirIt most certainly does, and the colonial dimension also reminded me of Moretti, who, talking about Frankenstein, mentions how the champion who promises society to vanquish the monstrous Other will always be
Excluir"nationalistic, stupid, superstitious, philistine, impotent, self-satisfied. But this does not show through. Fascinated by the horror of the monster, the public accepts the vices of its destroyer without a murmur, just as it accepts his literary depiction, the jaded and repetitive typology which regains its strength and its virginity on contact with the unknown. The monster, then, serves to displace the antagonisms and horrors evidenced within society to outside society itself. [...] The monster, the utterly unknown, serves to reconstruct a universality, a social cohesion which in itself would no longer carry conviction."
Moretti, Franco. “The Dialectic of Fear”, New Left Review, 136 (Nov.-Dec. 1982), 67-85;