removed menu file and fixed formating

content/.well-known/matrix/server

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-{
-	"m.server": "matrix.apotheke.earth"
-}

content/about.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ bookToc: true
 
 # about
 
-I do not, and hopefully never will, claim to know the truth. In fact, I [claim the opposite]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic/axioms" >}}).
+I do not, and hopefully never will, claim to know the truth. In fact, I [claim the opposite]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" >}}).
 
 ## this project
 I have an innate need to express the thoughts in my head.
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Since this a public project, i.e. an express of opinion in a public forum, the a
 
 Out of want to disinclude any bias that may arise from the connection between myself and my ideas, I try to maintain as much separation as possible between the metaphysical entity that is this project and my self. I do however feel like I need to give a proper introduction.
 
-The [axiomatic system of faith](/theses/metaphysica/on-logic/axioms) that I choose to believe in is the dogma of the Orthodox Catholic Church, as it was established in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.
+The [axiomatic system of faith]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" >}})that I choose to believe in is the dogma of the Orthodox Catholic Church, as it was established in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.
 
 This for most people who know me personally oftentimes comes as a surprise, especially to those that know me from a young age, during which I was an atheist; I rejected the axiomatic system I currently believe in, and I followed the system of "pure scientific truth", ignoring the gaps and weaknesses it presents.
 

content/menu/_index.md

@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
----
-headless: true
----
-
-- [metaphysica]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica" >}})
-  - [on logic]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic" >}})
-    - [the nature of faith]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic/axioms" >}})
-    - [concerning fallacies]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic/fallacies" >}})
-  - [on free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on free will" >}})
-    - [the existence of free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on free will/existence" >}})
-    - [defining free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on free will/definition" >}})
-

content/theses/metaphysika/_index.md

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ---
 title: "metaphysica"
+weight: 1
 ---
 
 # metaphysica
@@ -10,6 +11,6 @@ title: "metaphysica"
 This corpus is split into parts; the first part attempts to deconstruct logic, and the second one deals with free will. As more parts are written this page will expand to include them too.
 
 ## table of contents
-1. [on logic]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic" >}})
+1. [on logic]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic" >}})
 
-2. [on free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on free will" >}})
+2. [on free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on free will" >}})

content/theses/metaphysika/on free will/_index.md

@@ -1,17 +1,18 @@
 ---
 title: "on free will"
+weight: 2
 ---
 
-# on free will
+<h1>on free will</h1>
 
 ## introduction
-In this part, I attempt to present and free will as a mode of action. Multiple times throughout long discussions with others, and myself, I have run into issues pertaining to the definition and the idea that such a mode even exists. 
+In this part, I attempt to present free will as a mode of action. Multiple times throughout long discussions with others, and with myself, I have run into issues pertaining to the definition and the idea that such a mode even exists. 
 
 Moreover, to be able to move ahead with discussing moral, societal, and human issues, I need to define free will, since, in every other mode of action, the aforementioned cannot exist; one needs to be able to *choose* in order to have a moral status, form relationships, and even define themselves.
 
 Due to the infallible nature of free will, the discussion concerning the existence of free will leaves much to be desired; it is nevertheless important to the rest of the text.
 
 ## table of contents
-1. [the existence of free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on free will/existence" >}})
+1. [the existence of free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on free will/existence" >}})
 
-2. [defining free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on free will/definition" >}})
+2. [defining free will]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on free will/definition" >}})

content/theses/metaphysika/on free will/definition.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ---
 title: "defining free will"
 ---
-# trying to define the modes of actions
-<br />
+<h1>defining free will</h1>
+<h2>trying to define the modes of actions</h2>
 
-If we accept [the idea of free will existing]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on free will/existence" >}}), we should be able to define it, in order to be able to self reference and call upon to make use of this idea. This also helps in clarifying the meaning, which in everyday speech is muddled, much like most of language, due to the nature of communication (more on that at a later point).
+If we accept [the idea of free will existing]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on free will/existence" >}}), we should be able to define it, in order to be able to self reference and call upon to make use of this idea. This also helps in clarifying the meaning, which in everyday speech is muddled, much like most of language, due to the nature of communication (more on that at a later point).
 
 Alongside free will, there are two more modes of behaviour in nature, determinism and pure randomness. Discussing these first is necessary to properly define free will, since these are directly observable in the outside world; free will is only directly observable in the inner state of the self, with the admission that others behave similarly.
 

content/theses/metaphysika/on free will/existence.md

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 ---
 title: "the existence of free will"
 ---
-# why we are rather than not
-<br />
+<h1>the existence of free will</h1>
+<h2>why we are rather than not</h2>
 
 In order to define and then converse on ideas relating to free will, one must first convince themselves on its existence. Surely one can simply make a definition, as well as talk about the emergent system much like any other metaphysical structure, but for there to be a reason to do so, one must be able to argue for its existence.
 
 On this matter, there are many different arguments, however I will focus on the three that I find the strongest; this does not mean that one can prove existence, but these seem to strongly suggest and support that free will is indeed part of reality.
 
-Before I express these arguments, I would like to take some time to explain why the existence of free will is an unprovable truth. Apart from the ideas discussed earlier [on logical fallacies]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic/fallacies" >}}), and [on axioms]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic/axioms" >}}), there is another reason, metaphysical in nature, and inseparable from the existence of the God.
+Before I express these arguments, I would like to take some time to explain why the existence of free will is an unprovable truth. Apart from the ideas discussed earlier [on logical fallacies]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic/fallacies" >}}), and [on axioms]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" >}}), there is another reason, metaphysical in nature, and inseparable from the existence of the God.
 
 If one is to believe in a God that loves them fully and unconditionally, one must also believe that such a God would never force them to believe in Him; rather He would give them the option to choose to do so. In such a situation, any factual proof for the existence of God is unwanted, both by Him, and by any believer, since any such proof would ***force*** them to believe in Him, depriving them of the choice.
 

content/theses/metaphysika/on logic/_index.md

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ---
 title: "on logic"
+weight: 1
 ---
 
 # on logic
@@ -12,6 +13,6 @@ This is beneficial, because with the existence of logic one is extremely limited
 To show that we can talk about the unobservable and infallible, I create a weak and a strong claim of axiomatic reliance. The weak claim deals with the nature of axioms as a matter of faith, whilst the strong claim deals with the axiomatic reality of all knowledge.
 
 ## table of contents
-1. [the nature of faith]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic/axioms" >}})
+1. [the nature of faith]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" >}})
 
-2. [concerning fallacies]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysica/on logic/fallacies" >}})
+2. [concerning fallacies]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic/fallacies" >}})

content/theses/metaphysika/on logic/axioms.md

@@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
 ---
 title: "the nature of faith"
+weight: 1
 ---
-# a thesis on the axiomatic foundation of knowledge
-<br />
+<h1>the nature of faith</h1>
+<h2>a thesis on the axiomatic foundation of knowledge</h2>
 
 The words "logic" and "knowledge" are often connected in the minds of humans. In the sciences, logic is used religiously, in an attempt to obtain knowledge, in the same way that it is used in religions.
 

content/theses/metaphysika/on logic/fallacies.md

@@ -1,10 +1,11 @@
 ---
 title: "concerning fallacies"
+weight: 2
 ---
-# most appeals to logic are appeals to authority
-<br />
+<h1>concerning fallacies</h1>
+<h2>most, if not all, appeals to logic are appeals to authority</h2>
 
-To conclude the [discussion on logic](/theses/metaphysica/on-logic/axioms/), I would like to examine in depth the propagation of knowledge, in order to present the greatest result; the fact that most appeals to logic are themselves a logical fallacy.
+To conclude the [discussion on logic]({{< relref "/theses/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" >}}), I would like to examine in depth the propagation of knowledge, in order to present the greatest result; the fact that most appeals to logic are themselves a logical fallacy.
 
 Logical fallacies are, like all named things, characterizations; and they grant a person the ability to understand if a proposition is logically consistent in the broader system of an axiomatic system.
 
@@ -28,4 +29,4 @@ This path demands for each and every individual to have a non-finite time, so th
 
 I say 'possibly' a single path, and 'seemingly' leads to the Truth, because even in this scenario appealing to authority is unavoidable; for does a person not have to trust themselves that the knowledge they have is valid? Do they not have to rely on themselves as an authoritative figure to explore past the beginning of their reason?
 
-Alas, this is the greatest and most subtle flaw of logic.
+Alas, this is the greatest and most subtle flaw of logic; that even in the abscence of others, you need to have faith, at minimum to yourself.

hugo.toml

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ enableGitInfo = false
 
   # (Optional, default none) Set leaf bundle to render as side menu
   # When not specified file structure and weights will be used
-  BookMenuBundle = '/menu'
+  # BookMenuBundle = '/menu'
 
   # (Optional, default docs) Specify root page to render child pages as menu.
   # Page is resoled by .GetPage function: https://gohugo.io/functions/getpage/