add absolute urls to all transcript links

content/podcast/Aristotle-101-Substance-In-The-Categories.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ draft: false
 
 {{< audio "https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/podcast/audio/podcast_2020-03-16_300800f3e7dcf7e496c3a27864bd1d6f.m4a" >}}
 
-Transcript can be{{< newtab title="found here." url="/post/aristotle-101-substance-in-the-categories/" >}}
+Transcript can be{{< newtab title="found here." url="{{< home >}}/post/aristotle-101-substance-in-the-categories/" >}}
 
 <p>The Categories is Aristotle’s first attempt to outline a theory of being, in addition to the work’s central focus, which is to provide an account of the ways in which we think about being, and beings. In total, there are ten categories of thought about being, but the core of his theory of being begins with the first category. This is what he called “substance”. This essay will summarize Aristotle’s conception of substance as he presents it in The Categories, briefly explain what distinguishes substance from the other categories, and offer some additional thoughts about the metaphysics of being, in relation to Aristotle’s mentor, Plato.</p>
 

content/podcast/Aristotle-101-The-Four-Causes.md

@@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ draft: false
 
 {{< audio "https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/podcast/audio/podcast_2020-02-27_8cec687245f86d0ab10bbe975c356f09.m4a" >}}
 
-Transcript can be {{< newtab url="/post/aristotle-101-the-four-causes/" title="found here." >}}
+Transcript can be {{< newtab url="{{< home >}}/post/aristotle-101-the-four-causes/" title="found here." >}}
 
 > In the Physics, Aristotle says that we aim at understanding, which he says is to be able to give a full account of “<em>the how and the why of things coming into existence and going out of it</em>”. In other words, to understand something is to be able to give an explanation of how and why a thing changes. That explanation is what Aristotle means by ‘cause’. Today, thinking of explanation in terms of causes is not an alien notion. But, when we do this, we are typically only thinking in one narrow scientific sense of the term. Aristotle, however, describes a theory of causal explanation in both the Physics and the Metaphysics that includes four separate categorical senses of the term. Aristotle insists that a complete explanation will appeal to all four of these kinds of cause. In this answer, I will briefly describe the four causes, and attempt to explain why the fourth, ‘final’ cause is primary in Aristotle’s theory.

content/podcast/Cultural-Knowledge-And-Discipline.md

@@ -11,4 +11,4 @@ draft: false
 
 <p>We're being robbed of our capacity for expression in more ways than just overt censorship. In the name of "liberation" from an ostensible "oppression" we are stripped of access to our cultural heritage, and denied the opportunity to learn the rules and principles that governed the creation of new art in previous generations. This is dangerous, and we ought to reject this.</p>
 
-Full Transcript {{< newtab title="can be found here." url="/post/on-culture-knowledge-and-discipline/" >}}
+Full Transcript {{< newtab title="can be found here." url="{{< home >}}/post/on-culture-knowledge-and-discipline/" >}}

content/podcast/Schopenhauer-and-the-freedom-of-the-will.md

@@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ draft: false
 
 {{< audio "https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/podcast/audio/podcast_2020-02-15_119b0ae00c253dcd57b1e52f89879a9c.m4a" >}}
 
-You can find the {{< newtab url="/post/artur-schopenhauer-on-freedom/" title="transcript here." >}} For those interested in the original text out of which this dialogue was constructed, you can {{< newtab url="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Philosophical-Classics-Norwegian-Sciences/dp/0486440117" title="find it here." >}} I highly recommend giving it a read, when you have some time. I'm a defender of free will, but Schopenhauer makes a defense of determinism here, that every libertarian must answer.
+You can find the {{< newtab url="{{< home >}}/post/artur-schopenhauer-on-freedom/" title="transcript here." >}} For those interested in the original text out of which this dialogue was constructed, you can {{< newtab url="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Philosophical-Classics-Norwegian-Sciences/dp/0486440117" title="find it here." >}} I highly recommend giving it a read, when you have some time. I'm a defender of free will, but Schopenhauer makes a defense of determinism here, that every libertarian must answer.
 

content/podcast/Terrorism-power-and-the-example-of-Christ.md

@@ -9,4 +9,4 @@ draft: false
 
 {{< audio "https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/podcast/audio/podcast_2020-02-15_ec2e429cc1ec06e965e509426bb3d836.m4a" >}}
 
-The transcript for this episode can be found in {{< newtab url="/post/terror-responsibility-and-the-example-of-god/" title="this blog post." >}} I should probably put a warning on this podcast, because I discuss the Brenton Tarrant terror attack. But, I trust my audience to be able to handle it. So, take what you will from what I have to say.
+The transcript for this episode can be found in {{< newtab url="{{< home >}}/post/terror-responsibility-and-the-example-of-god/" title="this blog post." >}} I should probably put a warning on this podcast, because I discuss the Brenton Tarrant terror attack. But, I trust my audience to be able to handle it. So, take what you will from what I have to say.

content/podcast/The-First-Question-Is-There-A-God.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ draft: false
 
 {{< audio "https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/podcast/audio/podcast_2020-02-21_3714fa981ba37d0f6f8a2478612bd2c6.m4a" >}}
 
-Transcript can be{{< newtab title="found here." url="/post/is-there-a-god/" >}}
+Transcript can be{{< newtab title="found here." url="{{< home >}}/post/is-there-a-god/" >}}
 
 > This post is my first foray into the question of whether or not there is a God. Before I can begin to attempt an answer, I need to explore a deeper question. Namely, what is the nature of this question? What exactly are we asking, when we ask this question? I want to suggest that this question is best understood as a fundamental choice, and that the choice is not simply one of satisfying an ontological preference, but one of universal significance. The way one answers this question will define one’s entire life, indeed all life. It will condition the content of all of one’s relationships, and predispose the outcome of every subsequent choice. It will frame every subsequent question you will ask yourself, from the nature of morality and history, to the kinds of activities you engage in, day to day. This choice lies at the center of everything it means to exist, and to be human. Which fork of the dilemma you choose, is therefore, the most important choice you will ever make.
 

content/podcast/The-Struggle-Between-Public-and-Private.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ draft: false
 
 {{< audio "https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/podcast/audio/podcast_2020-02-17_c2676aeb7b7eb0e7b4993fdc00899ef0.m4a" >}}
 
-Full Transcript {{< newtab title="can be found here." url="/post/the-struggle-between-public-and-private/" >}}
+Full Transcript {{< newtab title="can be found here." url="{{< home >}}/post/the-struggle-between-public-and-private/" >}}
 
 Summary:
 > The role of the private sphere of life has been drastically eroded and diminished over the last twenty-five years, by the exploitation of network technology in the form of social media -- and the public scrutiny of private life doesn't stop with Twitter or Facebook. Everywhere, network connected devices are collecting data about your activities, your choices, your relationships, your habits, and your preferences. Doorbells, televisions, stereo systems, building security systems, and of course, computers and now the ubiquitous smartphone, all have microphones, cameras, GPS trackers, 'call home' beacons, and various other means of generating and vomiting data about you, to massive commercial institutions that are more than willing to hand that information over to political institutions, or even to openly publicize it for no other reason than to increase the potential for revenue generation. All digital &nbsp;records are fair game for exploitation. Emails, purchase receipts, government documents, video recordings, audio recordings, private chats, even files stored on local hard disks -- if they're connected to the internet, they're "public" in some sense enough to skirt legal limits. If your mother notes your birthday on her Facebook page, your birthdate is public record. If your girlfriend breaks up with you and rants about it on Twitter, your relationship status is public record. If you add your friends to your snapchat address book, your friends contact information is public record. What's more, if it's public, the automatic assumption is that it is fodder for not just commercial, but <em>political</em> action. Celebrity is now an abundant commodity, diluted across the entire population of internet-connected citizens, whether it wants that status or not. If you have a phone number, you are as much a celebrity as Megan Markle. The only difference, is that not everyone has heard of you yet. Where does this leave the status of the sphere of the private? When the only barrier left between public and private, is mere ignorance of your presence in this new ubiquitous public sphere, can it really be said that there is a private sphere anymore?