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.
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 of ChatGPT using his previously published essay Real, Good Insights.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.