The Three Powerful Traditions of Thinking that Constitute Homeopathy.

By means of a historical, classical philological and philosophical approach, this paper attempts to demonstrate that homeopathy is based on three powerful traditions of thinking, which can be traced back to Ancient Greece's pre-Socratic era. Actually, it seems to be constituted by what may be termed lógos-, hómoion- and iásthai-thinking: that is, thinking in terms of rationality, similarity and healing. By contrast, modern medicine tends to be aligned with just one of these traditions, at the expense of the others, this being not without risk and adverse effects. It is mainly determined by the first type of rationality that genealogically derives from, and is therefore compatible with, the logic of economics whose predominance in the health care systems of modern societies is progressively rising. Homeopathy, however, may not be sufficiently and fairly understood without taking into account the complementary forms of thinking on which it also rests, such as the principle of similarity in an all-encompassing sense, and ancient healing knowledge in the tradition of catharsis. As a corollary of being essentially constituted by the three, homeopathy may persistently be in need of a dynamic equilibrium of its three constituent bases. Attempts to approach homeopathy from only one of the indicated modes of thinking fail to grasp its essence and result in figments or caricatures of what homeopathy was originally meant to be.

Similia Similibus Curentur: Theory, History, and Status of the Constitutive Principle of Homeopathy.

A clear definition of its subject and correct application of its tenets are the basis of any science. Conversely, the want of a unanimous understanding of its constituting principles by the homeopathic community is undermining its scientific practice, research and discussion. To facilitate these, first and foremost the Principle of Similars, similia similibus curentur, has to be clarified and assessed in terms of its theoretical meaning, historical development, and epistemological status. Hahnemann's conceptions, explanations, and appraisals were not static but evolved and hardened over the years, especially from 1796 to 1810. While initially he related similia similibus to an imitation of similar cures by nature and proposed it as an opposition to contraria contrariis, he later generalised it to the treatment of any disease. Whilst originally he considered it to be a hermeneutical principle, or a hint towards a curative remedy, Hahnemann later dogmatised it as the only truth. Considering advances in epistemology and theory of medicine, however, the Principle of Similars may not be assessed as a final truth or natural law to be empirically verified or falsified for good, but rather as a practical maxim, guiding the artist of healing in his/her curing of diseases rationally and individually.

The Need for Multidisciplinary Research within the History and Theory of Homeopathy.

The controversial issue of homeopathy's scientificity will, in all probability, not be settled by means of clinical trials alone, as long as uncertainty or ignorance about methodological, philosophical, and socio-economical essentials prevail on both sides of the argument. Rather than uncritically adopt the standards of the currently predominant paradigm, homeopathy should not forget its roots, peculiarities, and self-conception. Contrary to conventional medicine, it is based on a teleological image of humanity, a holistic and sustainable approach towards curing sickness, and an up-to-date concept of medical theory in terms of healing arts. However, under today's frameworked conditions of industrialisation, commercialisation and commodification, the strengths of homeopathy tend to be disregarded or even attacked, and a special kind of reductionist and materialist rationality, compatible with expanding markets and profits, is preferably facilitated. To reveal and demonstrate these developments and relationships on a scientific level, there is a need for multidisciplinary research on the part of the humanities, such as history and theory of medicine, history and theory of science, history of economics, sociology of scientific knowledge, and philosophy.

New approaches within the history and theory of medicine and their relevance for homeopathy.

Conventional sciences have brought forth a wealth of knowledge and benefits, but they have not always been clear and precise about their legitimate scope and methodological limitations. In contrast, new and critical approaches in modern sciences question and reflect their own presuppositions, dependencies, and constraints. Examples are quantum physics, theory and history of science, as well as theory and history of medicine, sociology, and economics. In this way, deprecative dogmatism and animosity amongst sciences ought to be lessened, while the field opens up for each science to redefine its appropriate place in society. This would appear to be a chance for homeopathy, as new approaches, especially within the social and economic sciences, suggest that being a follower of Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) may have advantages and privileges that conventional medicine seems to be lacking and whose relevance was overlooked during the rise of economic thinking in the last two centuries.

The biopsychosocial model and its potential for a new theory of homeopathy.

Since the nineteenth century the theory of conventional medicine has been developed in close alignment with the mechanistic paradigm of natural sciences. Only in the twentieth century occasional attempts were made to (re)introduce the 'subject' into medical theory, as by Thure von Uexküll (1908-2004) who elaborated the so-called biopsychosocial model of the human being, trying to understand the patient as a unit of organic, mental, and social dimensions of life. Although widely neglected by conventional medicine, it is one of the most coherent, significant, and up-to-date models of medicine at present. Being torn between strict adherence to Hahnemann's original conceptualization and alienation caused by contemporary scientific criticism, homeopathy today still lacks a generally accepted, consistent, and definitive theory which would explain in scientific terms its strength, peculiarity, and principles without relapsing into biomedical reductionism. The biopsychosocial model of the human being implies great potential for a new theory of homeopathy, as may be demonstrated with some typical examples.

The concept of health - in the history of medicine and in the writings of Hahnemann.

The number of notions of health is not infinite. In the history of medicine we can only find a number of different conceptions or paradigmatic ideas of health, in a variety of references and combinations. Health was seen as: 1. harmonious balance between principles or entities, 2. result of a struggle against opposing forces, 3. continuous dialectical process, 4. hierarchy of components or functions, 5. potential to perform and to develop, 6. transcendence towards higher levels of being, 7. result of conscious autonomous action, 8. optimal causal functioning, or 9. public task and responsibility. Hahnemann's view of health, as reflected in his writings, utilized virtually all of these elements. They reappear for instance as: 1. harmonious tuning of the life force, 2. defeat of pathogenetic influences, 3. admittance of aggravations, 4. autocracy of the spirit-like life principle, 5. reference to a higher goal of human existence, 6. perfecting character of medical service, 7. concern about dietetics and life style, 8. utilization of causality and natural science, and 9. appealing to governmental provisions and medical police. These paradigms have been repeatedly recombined and applied. The theory of medicine is the attempt to analyze, adjust, and develop concepts that meet the demand of contemporary medical practice. Medical theory lies between the fields of observable facts and metaphysical convictions. Distinguishing the levels of practice, theory, and metaphysics could allow the open discussion of theoretical issues, such as the concept of health or disease, without raising purely theoretical objections to well-established practice.

200 years Organon of Medicine - A comparative review of its six editions (1810-1842).

In 2010 the 200th anniversary of the Organon is celebrated by the homeopathic community. Samuel Hahnemann's Organon of Rational Therapeutics, published in 1810, however, marks neither the beginning of homeopathy nor the endpoint of its development. On the one hand, its contents are based on terms and concepts developed and published by Hahnemann during the preceding two decades. On the other hand, the five revised editions of the Organon that followed in the next three decades contain major changes of theory and conceptions. Hahnemann's basic idea, running through all the stages of the foundation, elaboration, and defence of his doctrine, may be detected by a comparative review of his works from a historical and philosophical perspective.

Sustainability as a challenge to therapeutics - The Hahnemannian and Gandhian approach.

Sustainability, i.e. the goal of maintaining a human-ecosystem equilibrium, is a comprehensive topic and suggestive ideal prompted by many current threats from and to humanity, such as climate change, environmental pollution, fatal drug reactions in modern medicine, and the like. Today, sustainable concepts are desperately needed, also in terms of medical treatment. Homeopathy offers an approach of rational and yet innocuous therapeutics, methodically not being reliant on prior animal testing and mass production of drugs, avoiding contamination of soil, air, or water, and toxic side-effects. It is based on a concept of specifically empowering the life-force of the patient to rid itself from pathogenic influences. Homeopathy, as outlined by its founder Samuel Hahnemann, may indeed be understood in a broader sense than just medicinal, and applied in a pedagogical, psychological, and political context as well. A similar methodically related approach may be found in Mahatma Gandhi's strategy of Satyagraha (holding onto truth) which also aims to specifically prompt and compel people to renounce their vices in a sustainable way. Both ways of healing in a moral sense, however, rest on premises whose plausibility has increasingly been questioned in the recent past. Thus, the waning appreciation of Hahnemann's and Gandhi's mindset is mirroring unsettling changes in the world's socioeconomic constitution rather than indicating its putative ineptitude to achieve sustainability on a global scale.

[The meaning of the sixth edition of "Organon der Heilkunst"]. / Znaczenie szóstego wydania "Organon der heilkunst" (1842) dla farmakoterapii.

Like any artist, the paractitioner of the healing art should exactly know his tools, i.e. his medicines and the directions for their application. In addition, he should be able to rely on their genuineness. Regarding the tool "Organon", considerable uncertainty has been expressed by some physicians about the authenticity of Hahnemann's instructions for preparing and applying Q-potencies, as described in the sixth edition of the Organon of Medicine published by Richard Haehl in 1921. Since 1992, however, the first text-critical edition of the sixth edition of the Organonis available. Unlike Haehl's edition this one is exclusively based on Hahnemann's original manuscript and precisely transcribing all its handwriting, vouches for its authenticity. Hence there is no reason left to ignore Hahnemanns instructions concerning Q-potencies. This paper presents the history of the reception of Q-potencies as well as their prerequisites and evolution up to Hahnemann's final modifications of his earlier directions. As it turns out, these late instructions of Hahnemann do not mean complete change of all his previous opinions. Rather they are the logical completion of a course followed by him for ten years already. Q-potencies were Hahnemann's solution of the following therapeutic dilemma: on the one side physicians are inclined to repeat the dose of a high potency as often as possible in order to accelerate the process of healing; on the other side they should refrain from repeating the dose to avoid violent aggravations of the state of the patient.

[Samuel Hahnemann and the principle of similars]. / Samuel Hahnemann und das Ahnlichkeitsprinzip.

The principle of similars (treat likes by likes) is generally considered to be one of the pillars of the homeopathic doctrine established by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). Nevertheless, its status and relevance with regard to the practice of homeopathy can be challenged by semantic, conceptual, and epistemological objections. 1. Contrary to its literal meaning, "similia similibus curentur" is commonly used in the sense of "all diseases should be treated by similar drug diseases", thus transgressing its original field of indication. 2. From 1796, when Hahnemann published his first definition of the principle of similars, he gradually raised his claims from merely suggesting a heuristic principle for finding new curative remedies to insisting on having discovered a law of nature and the only true way of healing, in 1807/1808. To substantiate his ambitious tenets, Hahnemann had to introduce a variety of theories which in turn were to become the main battleground in the ensuing controversy about homeopathy. 3. From the perspective of epistemology of science, science can never consist of a final set of absolute truths or the like but must rather be described as a continuous social process that retains a methodological cycle of abduction, deduction, and induction. From the perspective of theory of medicine, however, medicine is to be considered as a practical rather than a cognitive science in its own right. Its first concern ought to be the development of practical directions for treating patients, while the value of competing theories can only be judged from their usefulness in practice. Hence, even though Hahnemann's theories, including his conception of the principle of similars, may be untenable or outdated, the genuine method of homeopathic treatment he founded remains independent of and unaffected by criticism at the level of theory and concepts.

Is homeopathy a science?--Continuity and clash of concepts of science within holistic medicine.

The question of whether homeopathy is a science is currently discussed almost exclusively against the background of the modern concept of natural science. This approach, however, fails to notice that homeopathy-in terms of history of science-rests on different roots that can essentially be traced back to two most influential traditions of science: on the one hand, principles and notions of Aristotelism which determined 2,000 years of Western history of science and, on the other hand, the modern concept of natural science that has been dominating the history of medicine for less than 200 years. While Aristotle's "science of the living" still included ontologic and teleologic dimensions for the sake of comprehending nature in a uniform way, the interest of modern natural science was reduced to functional and causal explanations of all phenomena for the purpose of commanding nature. In order to prevent further ecological catastrophes as well as to regain lost dimensions of our lives, the one-sidedness and theory-loadedness of our modern natural-scientific view of life should henceforth be counterbalanced by lifeworld-practical Aristotelic categories. In this way, the ground would be ready to conceive the scientific character of homeopathy-in a broader, Aristotelian sense.

[The origin, diffusion and development of healing doctrines in medical history--exemplified by homeopathy]. / Die Entstehung, Verbreitung und Entwicklung von Heilsystemen als Gegenstand der Medizingeschichte--am Beispiel der Homöopathie.

As a paradigmatic case study of the origin, spread, and development of medical systems, this paper investigates the 200-years history of homeopathy from different perspectives of medical history. On the basis of new research on Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), first, a concise and critical overview on the principles, explanations, and implications of his doctrine is presented. The historical, conceptual, and social background of the founder of homeopathy is then elaborated in terms of history of medicine, science, philosophy, sociology, culture, and ideas, as well as theory of science, theory of communication, and sociology of science. The process of the world wide spread of homeopathy is examined from different points of view, ranging from history of heroes, institutions, professionalisation, politics, economics, religion, and organisations to history of patients, perception, and semiotics. Finally, a comparative approach to the different development and status of homeopathy in different countries results in the extraction of a set of crucial variables, such as charismatic personage, influential patronage, economic sponsorship, political protection, media support, and patients' demand, which might explane a major part of these differences. Eventually, the notorious splits of homeopathy's doctrine suggest the idea that--in analogy to theory of evolution--a variety of concurrent strains (rather than one monolithic block) of a doctrine may prove to be a kind of advantage for survival. In conclusion, acceptance and relevance of medical systems are determined by many factors. Since external ones are usually outweighing internal ones, medical history may offer a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of their spread and development than clinical trials and scientific objection alone.

The esoteric and exoteric view of homoeopathy

The terms "esoteric" and "exoteric" are used in German idealistic philosophy for the view from the inside (of the thinking process) and from the outside (on the thoughts that result). They can also be used to present new perspectives of homeopathy. Homoeopathic literature generally explains homoeopathy esoterically, i.e. as seen through the eyes of devoted practitioners, in terms... (AU)

Anthropology and medicine

Fundamental reflections on anthropology in medicine lead on to the image of man on which modern, science-orientated medicine is based, followed by that which underlies homoeopathy. Hahnemann's concept of man is considered before elucidating the characteristics and differences between the two approaches and their particular position in the theory of medicine. The strict positivism of science essentially reduces the image of man, whilst the teleological approach, renouncing any claim to be able to investigate life itself, permits a phenomenological recognition of man in all his dimensions

Does a homeopathic ultramolecular dilution of Thyroidinum 30cH affect the rate of body weight reduction in fasting patients? A randomised placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial

To test whether an ultramolecular dilution of homeopathic Thyroidinum has an effect over placebo on weight reduction of fasting patients in so-called 'fasting crisis'. (AU)