Must we do what we say?

truth, responsibility and the ordinary in ancient and modern perfectionism

Daniele Lorenzini

The central argument of this paper is that moral perfectionism cannot be understood in its radical philosophical, ethical and political dimensions unless we trace its tradition back to the ancient Greek conception of philosophy as a way of life. Indeed, in ancient Greece, to be a philosopher meant to give importance to everyday life and to pay attention to the details of common language and behaviour, in order to actively transform oneself and one’s relationship to others and to the world. Truth itself was conceived as an event emerging from the agreement among the logoi of different people, or from the harmony established by an individual between his words and his deeds (e.g. Socrates, the Cynics). But this way of conceiving truth and practicing philosophy has been somehow put aside in modern times, and it has been renewed only during the last two centuries, primarily thanks to the transcendental American philosophy of Emerson and Thoreau. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to show how modern perfectionism re-invented ancient perfectionism, through the re-activation of the imperative to pay attention to our ordinary words and everyday life (and to their harmonic relation), linked to a truth always meant as a practice. My conclusion will be that moral perfectionism can be conceived and still practiced, today, as an ethics and politics of responsibility, i.e. of attention to and care for the ordinary.

Publication details

DOI: 10.4000/ejpap.893

Full citation:

Lorenzini, D. (2010). Must we do what we say?: truth, responsibility and the ordinary in ancient and modern perfectionism. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 2 (2), pp. n/a.

This document is available at an external location. Please follow the link below. Hold the CTRL button to open the link in a new window.