My wife has an M.A. in literature. Jung was a required course in the master's program because the theory of archetypes explains why the same motifs occur throughout history, in nearly every culture and era. I have a business degree and Jung's work is also taught in management classes, e.g. the Meyers-Briggs profile is used in virtually every large enterprise. I've had Jungian psychotherapy and learned how his theories inform dream analysis. Jungian psychologists are invited to give seminars to corporate management teams in Malaysia and other countries, including ours. The only places in the USA where Freud's model is still widely taught--as a tool rather than a subject of philosophy--are medical schools. This is why I urge people who are considering seeking a psychiatrist--an M.D.--for counseling, to check his credentials first.
ummm, is there a point here? my wife also has an m.a. in literature, i have an m.a.. in religious studies and anthropology, not sure of the relevance of all this. the fact is, for jung is about as highly regarded these days as is freud--which is not to suggest that their work is wholly without merit, it simply lacks scientific foundations. that his work remains enormously influential does in no way attest to it's soundness. for that matter, lacan is still highly influential in psychoanalysis, and lacan makes 'pataphysicians appear positively scientific (and they're
certainly not trying).
even with respect to archetypal motifs
seemingly appearing throughout all cultures and throughout history, such is by no means definitively established. much of this contention is based upon claims made by early and mid twentieth century anthropologists whose methodologies were somewhat dubious and hardly scientific, IOW much of what has been contested by the likes of eliade, et al, is now regarded as more a curiosity than anything else. such anthropologists seemed to have an astonishing record for finding precisely what they were looking for; that is, they adapted their findings to accord with their own cultural (and religious) presuppositions.
and as to the matter of speculating upon the beliefs and practices of pre-literate/pre-historic peoples, i.e. from paleolithic cave paintings for instance, claims to their having performed rites for transcendent or ecstatic experience (as an example) are highly suspect. moreover, with regards to the matter of transcendent practices specifically, contemporary work amongst modern nomadic peoples suggests that many hold
no such notions of the transcendent as found amongst both western and asiatic cultures. (i've got loads of interesting sources for this, if you are interested).
In my experience, most Americans older than 30, whether they read a lot or not, know the word "materialist" only as a communist insult to capitalists. Doreen is the only person I've ever encountered who uses it as a supernaturalist insult to scientists. I had to look it up to find that it goes back to the days before relativity, probably even before the discovery of electricity, when the public image of a scientist was a person primarily concerned with material rather than energy.
well, i would have to say that your experience is quite limited in this respect then: the term "materialism," which is often (today) used interchangeably with "physicalism," is rather common parlance in the humanities. as you'll note, the original query to which you responded was directed at Dywydder. i can't speak for Doreen nor Dywydder, but my suspicion--based upon my experiences with him--is that Dywydder would know precisely what was intended by materialism. and he would not have made the error which you did, in assuming that quantum concerns are somehow
not of "material" nature.
certainly,
some might be inclined to employ "materialistic" as a means of characterizing much, much earlier thinking--such as the notions of pre-socratics like thales or democritus--but the sense would here clearly be conveyed by the context.
moreover, where do you get this notion that "materialist" was being employed as a "supernaturalistic insult"? are you psychic? my understanding was that Doreen's question was simply for sake of clarification.
and finally, here is but one instance of an ordinary bloke employing "materialist" in the sense intended here: a question and answer session with robert wyatt (ex-soft machine, matching mole, henry cow, news from babel, et al) from 2007. within the first few minutes, wyatt--also a communist (maoist specifically)--mentions that he is a materialist, within the context of expressing his respect for richard dawkins!
robert wyatt q & a, purcell room, london, 2007
If you regard "materialist" as the antonym of "supernaturalist," then I guess you're right, within the halls of your own academic community. But I don't understand why you don't just use the simpler and more obvious word "naturalist." The position of science is that the natural universe is all there is, and that its behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Since that premise, which underlies the entire discipline of science and succinctly defines the scientific method, has been exhaustively tested for half a millennium and has never come close to being falsified, it is unreasonable to doubt it.
sometimes naturalist is used, but as i have noted "materialist" and "physicalist" are common parlance within the humanities.
So should we start returning the insult and call those who deny the validity and utility of science "unreasonablists"?
again, what insult? you strike me as either making a claim to be psychic, or as rather paranoid here, for there is no "insult."
and for that matter, who is denying the "validity and utility of science"?
)