Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Navigating reality's tapestry: Embracing truth and moral reasoning

Navigating reality's tapestry: Embracing truth and moral reasoning
Getty Images

Leland R. Beaumont is an independent wisdom researcher who is seeking real good. He is currently developing the Applied Wisdom curriculum on Wikiversity.

In the vast tapestry of existence, reality weaves its intricate patterns, awaiting our understanding and engagement. Every decision we make, from the simplest to the most profound, hinges on the unspoken wager that reality indeed exists. It is a bet we place countless times, like opening a door before passing through a doorway—a small yet consequential act that reaffirms our belief in the fabric of reality.

To embark on this journey, we must first learn what reality has to offer. It is a profound and awe-inspiring entity, ever-present and waiting to be explored. As we delve into its depths, we begin to appreciate the intrinsic beauty and intricacies that lie within its folds.

Within the grand tapestry of reality, truth acts as a faithful correspondent. Like the threads that bind a tapestry, truth aligns with the very essence of reality. Beliefs, on the other hand, are the threads we hold dear, shaping our perceptions and understanding of the world. It is within our power to choose these beliefs—to select those that align with truth and weave a narrative of clarity and coherence.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In this delicate dance between truth and belief, it becomes apparent that untrue beliefs carry a greater potential for harm than their true counterparts. The path to moral integrity, then, lies in our moral obligation to choose true beliefs—a responsibility we hold not only to ourselves but to the greater tapestry of humanity.

As we navigate this rich fabric of existence, we face the question of how to select our beliefs wisely. We discover that reality serves as our common ground—a steadfast foundation that transcends subjective perceptions. While perceptions may be personal and constructed, reality stands as the objective arbiter in disputes concerning matters of fact. It is through the lens of reality that we can find resolution and unity.

To navigate the complexities of reality, we seek reliable epistemologies—those trusted ways of knowing that converge on its truths. The lack of convergence, when apparent contradictions arise, signals an incomplete investigation, urging us to delve deeper and refine our methods. In this pursuit, scientific thinking emerges as one of the most reliable epistemologies, providing a framework for understanding reality's intricacies.

Amidst this exploration, we encounter the guiding principle of Intellectual Honesty—a companion on our journey. Intellectual Honesty blends good faith with an unwavering commitment to seeking true beliefs. It becomes the guiding light that illuminates the path toward clarity and understanding.

Yet, truth alone is not sufficient in guiding our actions. Moral reasoning steps forward to help us discern what we ought to do—to navigate the moral landscape that unfolds before us. It is a tool that allows us to make informed choices, rooted in considerations of well-being and human experience.

Thus, moral reasoning finds its foundation in the study of human well-being—a rich tapestry of experiences that shape our understanding of what truly matters. It extends beyond our immediate spheres, encompassing all sentient beings, transcending boundaries of time and space. It beckons us to seek the real good—to actively contribute to the flourishing of all.

In this great tapestry of existence, we find ourselves granted the agency to choose our path—to live wisely and navigate reality's vast expanse. The threads of truth, moral reasoning, and compassion weave together, forming the fabric of our lives. Through these choices, we leave an indelible mark upon the tapestry, shaping a world that embraces the pursuit of truth and the betterment of all sentient beings.

So, let us embrace these insights as we traverse reality's tapestry. Let us seek true beliefs and navigate moral dilemmas with reasoned discernment. In doing so, we embrace the essence of living wisely—contributing to the ongoing creation of a world that cherishes truth, compassion, and the boundless possibilities that lie within the tapestry of reality.

This essay is written by Leland Beaumont with the assistance ofChatGPT using his previously published essayReal, Good Insights.

Read More

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance

Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Assassination attempt will fuel political extremism

Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.

President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.

In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands coming together in a circle of people
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Building a future together based on a common cause

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

As the 2024 presidential campaigns speed toward November, we face a transformative moment for our nation. The challenges of recent years have starkly revealed the deep divisions that threaten our societal fabric. Yet, amidst the discord, we are presented with a pivotal choice: Will we yield to the allure of division, or will we summon the courage to transcend our differences and shape a future founded on common cause and mutual respect?

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less