Homeopath: the definition
This raises the question: what exactly constitutes a homeopath? Is there even a definition, given that everyone seems to practice homeopathy as they please—and even claim complete therapeutic freedom? We just mentioned the proportion of nonconformists; now we must consider the proportion of geniuses. If we consider Hahnemann’s century, what names remain? A handful—like Newton, Goethe, Mozart, andAlembert—out of roughly a billion people on the planet at the time. I therefore prefer not to do the math but pragmatic remain pragmatic first studying what a genius has to say to us.
How many people before Newton had seen an apple fall before a genius realized that a force must necessarily be applied to it in order for it to fall?
How many doctors since Hippocrates observed that one disease can cure another, provided their symptoms coincide? We have thus seen numerous cases of chronic orchitis cured following mumps, of which it is a classic complication. The examples are countless; Hahnemann cites hundreds drawn from the allopathic observations of his time. Even today, we are “surprised” to find that a condition listed among the “adverse” effects of an allopathic drug has nevertheless been cured by that very same drug…
Only Hahnemann wondered whether there might be a general law here—what we call the Law of Similars—and sought to explore this experimentally. It was only after 55 years of research that he stated in §26:
26.— Thus, experience shows that all medicines, without exception, cure diseases whose symptoms resemble those of their [artificial disease], and that none of them can resist them.[1]
This is based on the natural law of homeopathy—a law that has sometimes been sensed but has remained little known until now, even though it has always been the foundation of all cure —namely that:
In a living organism, a weaker dynamic condition is permanently suppressed by a stronger one, provided that the latter (though of a different species) is nevertheless very similar to the former in its manifestation (a). [See §45]
Can homeopathy be reduced, as many practitioners claim, to the law of similars? The answer is obviously no, especially when phrased that way. That would be like saying that rubber is the same thing as the sap of the rubber tree, when in fact there is a world of difference between the two.
As some pioneers before Hahnemann had observed, numerous pitfalls lie in wait for those who follow the path of similars, even though it is the only possible path to a cure. The major problem one encounters first is the patient’s excessive reaction to a remedy that mimics their condition. As might be expected, a dramatic aggravation inevitably occurs and prevents a favorable outcome. In seeking to circumvent this drawback, the Founder discovered potency. He writes:
269.— The system of homeopathic medicine has developed, for its specific use, a completely novel process—one that had never been tried before—which extracts and releases the immaterial medicinal properties inherent in raw substances. Only through this means do these substances acquire medicinal properties and an immeasurably penetrating efficacy (a), even those that, in their raw state, show not the slightest sign of medicinal action on the human body.
…
This remarkable transformation of the qualities of natural substances brings out latent dynamic powers that have hitherto gone unnoticed, as if they were lying dormant in a potential state (b), yet capable of influencing the vital force and altering the well-being of animal life (c) [See §11]. This process is called potency, “potentialization” (the development of medicinal power), and its products are dynamizations (d) or potencies obtained at various degrees.
While homeopathy cannot be reduced to the Law of Similars, neither can it be reduced to the prescription of potentized substances. Only through careful study and adherence to all the aphorisms of the Organon can one become a true homeopath.
Absolute Laws and the Principle of Relativity
The Organon does not function as a closed system composed of rigid rules; quite the opposite: each aphorism represents the beginning of a new horizon of knowledge. Each new reading propels us a little higher, toward the discovery of new peaks. I confess that even the slightest passage in the Organon sends shivers down my spine. No doubt this is partly due to an exaggerated sensitivity, honed by thirty years of training in listening to patients. And yet, it is not just that, and even less a matter of idolatry on my part after spending so many years trying to find fault with Hahnemann. No, these chills stem from the wonder one feels upon discovering a reality that transcends us, in the face of that mathematical beauty that Einstein attributes to the presence of God.
Take, for example, Newton’s *Principia *. In his immortal work, published in 1687, the scientist describes all the equations still needed today to understand the motion of celestial bodies, place a satellite into orbit, or land a probe on the surface of Titan. More than three centuries old, the book has not aged a bit. Why? Because it describes laws, patiently deduced from observation, and there is no speculation or interpretation on the part of the scientist.
What Newton did for physics, Hahnemann did for medicine. That is why the Organon has not aged either. His descriptions of the understanding of pathological phenomena and reactions to any active substance introduced into a living organism will remain eternally true.
And what a delight it is to immerse oneself in this book, where every word is carefully chosen, every turn of phrase so logical and complete that it would be difficult to change even a single punctuation mark for fear of altering the depth of its meaning and diminishing its impact—much like a Mozart score.
What we must remember isthat there is no single proposition that holds absolute truth; rather, there are only relative propositions that make sense when considered as a whole. The Organon enables one to become a homeopath only when applied in its entirety; it may be supplemented, but nothing may be omitted.
The patient presents a similar reality: he cannot be reduced to a diseased organ, and the only way to address the problem is through the totality his symptoms, which indirectly characterizes the invisible interior of the organism. It is this totality defines the case; it is the concept of totality .[2]
Nor can the properties of medicines be reduced to a single symptom, theme, or idea. It is indeed a set of signs that have emerged experimentally and been confirmed clinically that gives us an idea of a medicine’s particular nature, its effect on the body, and its ability to produce a specific artificial disease. Similarly, a disease can only be defined by a syndrome —a set of signs and symptoms.
This concept of relativity introduced by Hahnemann in medicine is reminiscent of the absence of an absolute frame of reference that led Poincaré to formulate the theory of relativity—an idea that was later appropriated by Einstein. Even the existence of prime numbers, which are divisible only by themselves or by 1, seems to confirm that the universe cannot be reduced to a single law at all.
Thus, a few certainties can be identified, confirmed by 200 years of the practice of pure homeopathy,
- It is not possible to elevate a relative concept to an absolute one. Nor will it be possible to establish a theory of everything or to reduce the universe to a single “magic” formula.
- It follows that, since the patient’s condition is expressed through a totality symptoms, it is a misconception to focus solely on an arbitrary subset of symptoms (allopathy) or to reduce it to a single “essential” symptom (excesses of homeopathy).
- Consequently, the only viable therapeutic approach is one that incorporates points 1 and 2. This is called homeopathy… we will discuss further on (see Sequential Therapy) the paradox between an absolute law of cure its application through a set of relative rules.
- All deviations from homeopathy will be characterized by their focus on a fact of relative value that has been elevated to an absolute. So much for the “research” and other speculations surrounding a supposed “essence” of a remedy—it exists no more than the essence of homeopathy or of a patient… Forget conventional medicine, but also all the system-builders who seize upon a tiny little fragment of homeopathy—which they have never studied—to elevate that fragment to a system and found a school of thought.
Only a philosophical approach can protect us from such errors, which can befall both the most eminent scientists and humble practitioners alike. The aim is to broaden our awareness so that we do not succumb to such dogmatism. It is a constant struggle we must wage against our own nature, which urges us to cling to what is already known, to what has already worked.
The philosopher-philanthropist***
However, mere philosophical reflection is not enough in medicine. Trying to think clearly and identify our blind spots is one thing, but we must also take action to help the sick. Here is what the Master says in §285:
A homeopath is, above all, a philanthropist; unlike so many of his colleagues in the official school, he does not prescribe remedies whose beneficial effects on healthy people he is unaware of, and about which he has merely heard that “they have been effective for this or that illness ” [such as the publications and other supposedly scientific studies issued by major laboratories, animal studies, etc.]
A true homeopath is, therefore, a lover of humanity; he places humanity at the top of his list of priorities. This mindset is reflected in the fact that the homeopath does everything in his power to improve the lot of humanity. And this is precisely what Hahnemann demands in the very first paragraph of the Organon:
1 — The highest—and indeed the sole—vocation of a physician is to restore the health of sick people (a); this is what is known as healing.
(a) Its purpose is not to devise so-called systems by combining empty ideas and hypotheses about the innermost nature of the life process and the origin of diseases within the invisible depths of the body (an ambition that causes so many doctors to waste their energy and time).
Nor is its purpose to attempt, through countless efforts, to explain pathological phenomena and the immediate causes of diseases, etc., which have always remained hidden from them.
Nor is his aim to indulge in unintelligible words and a jumble of vague, pompous expressions intended to sound erudite in order to impress the uninformed, while the sick cry out in vain for help!
We’ve had enough of these scholarly musings known as theoretical medicine—for which special professorships have even been established—and it is high time that those who call themselves doctors stop deceiving poor people with their gibberish and finally start taking action, that is, actually helping and healing them.
A masterful structure of thesis and antithesis, as is often the case in the Organon. Hahnemann reminds us of our duty, which is to heal, and then explains the most common shortcomings found among physicians:
- Forging so-called systems. Having taken the corpse as a model of health since Vesalius, conventional medicine is itself nothing more than a vast arbitrary system that breaks down, like a kaleidoscope, into various apparatuses, each treated according to pathophysiological theories. In homeopathy, these systems proliferate like parasites to the point where true homeopathy is soon no longer discernible. As we have seen, these systems elevate a relative truth to an absolute concept. Sparkling and attractive in their early stages, like any fad, they never outlive their inventor…
- Endless explanations. It is common practice to justify deviant behavior by invoking official science; it is, in a way, the medical equivalent of UFO-related delusions. The authors gain some credibility by using a new scientific discovery as a starting point (preferably a trendy one, i.e., one that has a certain following among the general public) and then distorting it to serve their own whims. One often finds phrases such as “we now know that,” which allows them to use any new discovery in the hard sciences to claim they are applying it to medicine. Alongside these charlatan practices, we can include here conventional medicine, which persists in basing its treatments on theories, invariably with the same failure. Yet it would have been enough to observe nature to attempt to deduce the laws governing phenomena, as in all other sciences. Here, Hahnemann critiques the reductionist approach, which can never be of service in biology.
- Vague and grandiose expressions. To achieve point 2, it will often involve impressing people with trendy terms. Let’s take an amused look at “quantum therapy,” “the sensation method,” and so on. Among hundreds of gems: “The energetic action used in quantum therapy is similar to nature’s electromagnetic radiation and is intended to coherently influence the functions of the cells, tissues, and organs of the entire individual.”
A homeopath is, therefore , someone who thinks clearly and acts to provide relief. He or she is , by necessity , a philanthropic philosopher—someone who both thinks and acts.
It must be admitted that few doctors live up to this ideal. If that were the case, our sole source of pride would be curing the sick, not the need to distinguish ourselves by prescribing an remedy . Having attended many conferences, one cannot help but regret that most of these prescribers have not read *Les Précieuses ridicules*!
With a barrage of advertisements, there is a push to train people in all these new “approaches,” which brings us back to the level of allopathic medicine driven by trends. With each new generation of homeopaths, the standard drops a little further. Prescribers who have never studied the Organon practice and promote a caricature of homeopathy that is increasingly distorted, simplified, and far removed from the original. Since results are not forthcoming, few people have the courage to admit their intellectual failure and return to the roots of the discipline. New fads and theories are then devised, and the standard continues to decline, now bordering on quackery.[3] Ultimately, “homeopathy” is downplayed and reduced to just one prescribing technique among hundreds of others. It is a dreadful downward spiral that makes it easy to foresee the collapse of so-called homeopathy schools, which are now concerned only with staying trendy to attract customers.
I continue to hope that there are still people of good will and sound judgment among us who can reverse this trend before it proves fatal.
[1] That is, when a comparison of the effects of a remedy those of a disease reveals a high degree homeopathicity by the criteria in §153, and the case meets the requirements of §279.
[2] I cannot go into detail here about the concept of Gestalt, or the recognition of an overall form. For example, to recognize a tree, we do not examine the bark under a microscope, nor do we count and examine every leaf and every branch.
[3] We have now reached the point where we are prescribing remedy that remedy been tested, based on astrologers’ recommendations!
