<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Materialism on Greg Gauthier</title><link>https://gmgauthier.com/tags/materialism/</link><description>Recent content in Materialism on Greg Gauthier</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><copyright>Copyright 2024. All rights reserved.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2020 17:19:17 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://gmgauthier.com/tags/materialism/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Stefan Molyneux and the Definition of Love</title><link>https://gmgauthier.com/post/stefan-molyneux-and-the-definition-of-love/</link><pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2020 17:19:17 +0000</pubDate><category>Blog: [philosophy theology]</category><enclosure url="https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/blog/img/what-is-love1.jpg" type="image/jpg"/><description><![CDATA[ 
                    
                    <p><img src="https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/blog/img/what-is-love1.jpg"/></p>
                    <p>I am hesitant to do back-to-back critiques of Stefan Molyneux, because I don’t want the blog to become the “Contra Molyneux” journal. However, in his <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/4748-jesus-socrates-christmas-and-morality/id552010683?i=1000503447352"><strong>Christmas podcast</strong></a>, Stefan made a number of titillating and curious assertions, that I just couldn’t resist. He did not offer a thorough defense of any of them in the podcast, but we can excuse this on the ground that at least some of these are defended elsewhere, and were only presuppositions necessary for the present discussion.</p>
                    ]]></description></item><item><title>A Potential Defense of Naturalistic Idealism</title><link>https://gmgauthier.com/post/a-potential-defense-of-naturalistic-idealism/</link><pubDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2019 12:19:44 +0000</pubDate><category>Blog: [philosophy]</category><enclosure url="https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/blog/img/plato-thinking.png" type="image/jpg"/><description><![CDATA[ 
                    
                    <p><img src="https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/blog/img/plato-thinking.png"/></p>
                    <p>One frequent appeal by determinists in the free will debate, involves invoking certain facts about neuroscience to deny efficacy to the conscious subject. In order to do this, one of the things the determinist must say, is that sense impulses are somehow processed unconsciously into a coherent whole, before they are presented to the &lsquo;conscious&rsquo; subject as an &rsquo;experience&rsquo;, and that this processing (along with pre-conscious processing of decision-making activity), shows that we are entirely causally determined.</p>
                    ]]></description></item></channel></rss>