HOMEOPATHY
– THEORY AND METHOD
by Peter Morrell
Dream of Islands, 1984 – Peter Morrell
Ever since Hahnemann’s time, homeopathy has been both a medical theory and
a medical method. It is worth spending some time looking at these terms more closely. The
methods of homeopathy are its corpus of techniques used to treat the sick. It includes
materia medica, dosage, pharmacy and a range of theories upon which practice is based. These
include law of similars, minimum dose Hering’s Law suppression and miasms. The theory
content of homeopathy means its medical ideology or philosophy. As well as the above
theories, it also embraces the meaning content, patterns and wider significance within the
ideas, methods and clinical results.
The primary goal of homeopathic philosophy is not theoretical, but
pragmatic – to deepen, enrich and guide good practice. While homeopathy is unquestionably a
philosophical system in its own right – and has had a life of its own – that is not its
primary quality or function. It is primarily a clinical method aimed more at curing sick
folks, than winning adherants to its creed. Thus theory should not dominate or smother
method. Method always comes out top and should be the dominant force. Method is paramount.
That is one view. Although you could also argue that it does seek to gain converts as well
as cure the sick. So it might be viewed as a twin-track approach.
However, it is also true that theory cannot be ignored and is still a very
important element. It must be yoked in with method. Indeed, you can easily take the opposing
view, that without an underlying philosophy, method is just shooting in the dark. Theory
tends to keep method pure and ‘on track’. If you ditch theory then method tends to
degenerate into allopathised mongrel forms. If you ditch method then theory tends to ossify
into dogma. Both are necessary and complement each other. The ideology of homeopathy is
highly relevant to its method, but the two work best together.
The main concepts of homeopathy are both theories and methods at the same
time. For example, Hering’s law, minimum dose, law of similars, potentisation and miasms –
these are all at the same time both methods and theories about medicine. They exist happily
at both levels within homeopathy and they enrich and support each other. Why is this? It
mainly stems from the fact that homeopathy was based in its inception both upon ideas and
upon observations. It is just as firmly rooted in methods, experiments and actions, as it is
in theories and ideas. Hahnemann makes this very clear. What he perhaps did not make so
clear is that theory is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It should always be
slightly subordinate to method and should always be confirmed and enhanced through practice.
Theory is in fact a distillation of ideas derived from practice and confirmed and amended
through practice.
(Courtesy H.I.)
Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)
Hahnemann
Hahnemann did not start out as a theoretician, pontificating from high
ground about the best and ideal form of medicine or its philosophical basis. He did do that,
but it came second. It is hard to say with absolute certainty, but his clinical experiments
probably came first and these were then followed at a later stage by his theoretical
rantings. Important and much overlooked point: those rantings were always derived from
practice and confirmed by it. Thus he was never speaking from a purely theoretical level,
but always based upon the sound bedrock of practice, of clinical experience. Ideas were
amended through practice, revised, extended, embellished, corrected and altered only through
practice. Practice, practice, practice. Thus he provided, created and perfected chiefly a
clinical method, but greatly enriched, underpinned and supplemented by theoretical writings.
This is a very important point: theory always follows method and is it’s subordinate. It
also reflects an aspect of the man: he was both an excellent experimental scientist and a
powerful thinker and writer.
In another sense you could argue that the ideas preceded the methods. And
there is some truth in this. It is true of many areas of research and is often difficult to
establish with any certainty whether the ideas or the experiments came first. The probem is
in trying to trace the origin of a system, part of which comes out of someone’s head and
their reading and thinking and part of which comes out of the experiments and observations
they undertake on the practical level in the real world. Inevitably, it is usually a mixture
of both. Then in addition, there is also the wider cultural element and how a person has
drawn upon concepts and belief-patterns within the society and times they lived in. No doubt
these were all influences impinging upon Hahnemann as a person.
For example, in Hahnemann’s case it is very difficult to know with
certainty to what degree he leaned upon Paracelsus. That is a separate though interesting
strand. He left behind little evidence of any substantial interest in occultism or mediaeval
medicine, so it is more likely that he devised homeopathy partly through practice and partly
through his own mind just thinking things through. And for that there is abundant evidence
right through his life – he had a brilliant, searching and restless inventiveness to his
mentality. He was very perceptive and very original in almost everything he did. It
therefore remains unlikely that he copied Paracelsus. And it is often imposssible to trace
back to its source an idea that has taken root in someone’s mind and then borne fruit many
years later.
Some people are good at making things but they can’t teach it. Emulators
must simply observe them very closely in order to become good or to work out why they are so
good. Others are good at describing and teaching but cannot do it very well. Some rare
beings are good at doing and at describing and teaching. Hahnemann was in this latter
category. He combined a genius for doing new things and for teaching them, describing them,
and for analysing the meaning and significance of what he was doing. He was well rooted in
bothworlds – theory and method, both as a keen observer and experimenter but also as an
articulate and competent theoretician. He explored and stressed both aspects – we should try
and follow his lead and strive to be strong in both areas.
The reasoning behind theory and method is very interesting and focuses
upon how Hahnemann discovered homeopathy in the first place. It rests chiefly upon his
brilliant critique of allopathy. What are the origins of that critique?
Hahnemann first discovered for himself the appalling ineffectiveness of
allopathic practice. As a physician, as a compassionate man and as a parent, that fact
depressed him very greatly. But working on a theoretical level this inspired him to search
out and identify the underlying reasons for its ineffectiveness. That could only be revealed
through clearly identifying and enunciating its underlying creed or philosophy. He must have
spent a great deal of time just thinking and reflecting about allopathic medicine – its
methods and its whys and wherefors. He must have done that to have arrived at the
conclusions he came to.
One thing that is wonderful about Hahnemann is that he resolutely believed
that a rational form of medicine could be developed and he meticulously searched it out.
Many would have just given up and done something else, but he soldiered on, translating
medical texts from many languages, unearthing data from the past and experimenting on a
practical level. Though it is true that he gave up medical practice for a time, he never
gave up the hope of finding a medical path superior to allopathic drugging.
His critique asserts that allopathy is based chiefly upon three ideas:
polypharmacy, strong doses and the law of contraries. He identifies all three as the root
causes of its ineffectiveness. Then he chooses the opposite medical creed – single drugs,
small doses, and similars, which he provisionally identifies as the most likely features of
an effective and superior medical path. What is so interesting is that he uses the very
creed of his enemy – allopathy – as the basis for first setting his feet down onto clean
Paracelsan sand! I shall return to this point.
His clinical practice therefore both suggested and confirmed his
theoretical ideas. He felt fully justified in vilifying allopathy because at both levels he
could see that it was fundamentally incorrect. Incorrect as a method because it didn’t work,
and therefore incorrect as a creed. What is so striking and modern about his apporach is
that he attacked a method that didn’t work and then decided that it must contain suspect
principles that underpin the technique and form the cause of why it didn’t work. That whole
approach is so modern and so scientific that it has gone unnoticed. Thus through his
powerful analysis of allopathy he came to conceive an outline sketch of the most probable
qualities of a superior method – similars, small doses and single drug. He then tested this
method and found it very useful.
Through continued experiment he became more and more convinced that it was
the best of the two – what he termed a ‘rational healing art’. This increased his confidence
and widened the gulf with allopathy. This is why Hahnemann criticised so forcefully both the
methods and the ideology or creed of allopathy. He had successfully unearthed its essence
and shown it to be incorrect through testing its opposite creed and showing that the latter
was both more effective and more predictable. No-one before Hahnemann had done this. No-one
before had so clearly identified and laid bare the underlying creed of allopathy and chosen
from its basis an opposite creed and then systematically investigated it and pushed it
through into a new system. That was a remarkable achievement.
Paracelsus
Now some people say that Paracelsus had done much the same thing 250 years
previous. This is a claim we need to look at more carefully. It is not quite true that
Paracelsus had done the same thing. Paracelsus had certainly criticised allopathy both at a
theoretical level and as a method, and he adopted and stressed a range of unorthodox ideas
(eg law of similars), but unlike Hahnemann he had mainly done all that emotionally,
irrationally, chaotically and unsystematically – which was his way. A way that was peculiar
to him and valid for him – and a way that is still valid for some. But he failed to
articulate any clear, rational or well-reasoned alternative to allopathy. Much of what he
wrote is very obscure and contradictory and can in no way be regarded as a tidy medical
system with a consistent and rational philosophy. Moreover, it is only understandable and of
interest now in the light of Hahnemann and homeopathy which came later. It was neither of
interest nor understandable to medics at the time. So it was not a clear system that
predates homeopathy as a well-argued and rational ideology. It was a mixed bag. If it had
been a clear system it might well have been adopted more widely. The fact that it wasn’t is
one piece of evidence against it.
It might more realistically be seen as ‘a preparation for Hahnemann’, a
clearing of debris, levelling of ground and the building of basic foundations for
homeopathy. But it never went any further than that. It was a foundation for a new house,
that was never actually built. There were no walls, no rooms and no roof. On a theoretical
or ideological level it is perfectly true that Paracelsus predates Hahnemann and forms a
sound basis of ideas upon which Hahnemann built his ‘house of homeopathy’, but it is
misleading to then say that Hahnemann copied Paracelsus or that he derived homeopathy from
Paracelsan medicine. In a sense he did do that. In another sense he just made parallel
discoveries (mainly through direct insight and experiment) and built up a system with strong
similarities to Paracelsus. His system was built up chiefly through experiment based upon
some ideas from Cullen and Paracelsus, amongst others, and from his critique of allopathy.
But it is oversimplistic and misleading to say that homeopathy was first produced by
Paracelsus and then perfected by Hahnemann.
It probably is true that Hahnemann magicked the ‘white dove’ of homeopathy
out of the ‘black hat’ of Paracelsan medicine, but it is very much Hahnemann’s white dove
and not that of Paracelsus. I stress this point at some length because it has been an
oft-repeated claim, even in his lifetime, that Hahnemann was a copier and imitator of
Paracelsus – a charge he vigorously denied. If it was true he might have admitted it. That
he denied it repeatedly indicates that it was probably more of a coincidence. That he became
angry at these accusations does show that he may have been denying something. Of course, to
those who swim in the wider river of history of ideas it is difficult to deny some link
between Paracelsus and Hahnemann – they are profoundly similar people – and Hahnemann knew
about Paracelsus in depth, but that does not inevitably mean that there isa strong causal
link between them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, then, method and theory are very important elements within
homeopathy and they complement each other very well. One should try not to overstress one
over the other. Both are essential aspects. The overstressing of theory has been a common
and regrettable tendency in homeopathic history. If anything we should stress method
slightly more than theory, bearing in mind that it is through method that Hahnemann arrived
at and confirmed his ideas, and not the other way around. While striving to become competent
in both, it is method that should take precedence and follow Hahnemann’s lead: homeopathy is
primarily a medical method rather than a medical theory.
It is also clear that the damaging and divisive tendency towards
dogmatism, which has erupted frequently in its history, damages homeopathy in the public
eye. And it derives largely from stressing theory at the expense of method. But by stressing
method as the central fact of homeopathy we can be broad church, remain undogmatic and be
open to all influences. We can become like the unprejudiced observer so beloved both of
Hahnemann and of science.
We should strive to copy Hahnemann who was say 55% a good practitioner and
45% a good thinker and philosopher. By combining both we become strong overall. Overemphasis
of theory leads to damaging and divisive dogmatism. To avoid that and to be faithful to our
art, we should strive to be good pracitioners first and foremost just like Hahnemann, Kent
and all the greats. Sound knowledge of both theory and method are essential to our achieving
that objective.
The methods of homeopathy have built up over 200 years a vast corpus of
experience and clinical data from many practitioners in different lands, that supports and
confirms the medical theories and techniques which Hahnemann delineated in detail in the
Organon and Chronic Diseases. The theories support the clinical data. Thus the two sets of
information mutually support and underpin each other. Those methods and theories can be
traced back to Hahnemann’s brilliant critique of allopathic drugging. Indeed, they are
entirely based upon that critique, which in embryo form was expressed as ‘single drugs, law
of similars and minimum dose’. That phrase is still in super-compressed format a good
definition of what homeopathy is, what its methods are and what its theory of disease is all
about as compared with the views and methods of allopathy – its natural opposite.
In this essay I have tried to show the central importance of theory and
method and to briefly sketch out the origin of homeopathy both in the work and in the mind
of Samuel Hahnemann, while also hinting at some of the wider cultural perspective he was
working in.