903 views? Unbelievable. Make sure you support Dr Jacobs. Clarity meets explanatory power in the vocabulary non academics.

This is one of the best summaries regarding the history of ideas I've ever heard!

So excited to see you’ve started a podcast!

After re-watching every bit of content you've done on the youtubes several times I am thoroughly excited to have new, at least semi-regular, content! Thank you!

This is so good. Dr. Jacobs has a way of pulling together data points I've learned over the years into an easy to understand summary. This deepens my faith, great stuff!

Had a blast last weekend but I wish we could’ve hung out more. Really digging these podcasts too. Concise and easy to digest🍻☦️

Man. I’m so happy to see you finally got a podcast! I’ve been looking out for new content from you every couple of weeks, consistently for the last two years!

this is so lit i didn’t know you started this channel 😎☦️📿

Hi Nathan thank you, love your stuff keep it up!!

Can't wait to listen to more!

great overview ❤ Nice paintings 😊

Thank you! This is wonderful! I have a major in Philosophy but have never had it laid out like this, a condensed history. Love it! I'm grateful you're doing this, thank you, thank you!

Dr. Jacobs, thank you so much. This is priceless, and the best overall summary of our current dilemma that I've yet heard. I've been yelling about this to anyone who will listen for several years now, and have adopted the analogy that we're playing intellectual king of the hill while standing on different hills. The question I can't get my head around, and would love to hear a response to if you check your comments, is this: How do those who adopt materialism/utilitarianism, which functionally abolishes free will, still believe in any form of intentionality like social engineering? I can't understand for the life of me how those who preach the death of free will also seem to believe they've arrived at that conclusion via rational means. Doesn't rationality require free will? Please help me see what I'm missing. And really, thanks again, this is such a great summary of the history that's lead us to an absolutely untenable cultural situation.

I think it's interesting that it's not necessary to grasp an idea on a "3 and 4" level in order to espouse it on a "1 and 2", and yet the "1 and 2" espousal remains so consistent with the "3 and 4" foundation. Seems counterintuitive - usually the ability to portray something simply and accurately depends on a mastery of the fine print. I think the same thing is true often times in theology. People have surface level theological commitments without realizing their implications. The point is that those implications end up manifesting themselves anyway.

This was great, thank you. How do you think the realism / nominalism dichotomy maps to Iain McGilchrist's idea of the left and right brain hemispheres and their different ways of seeing the world (in his book The Master and his Emissary) ?

There is one root cause, inequality