Homoeopathic philosophy: its importance in the treatment of chronic diseases [*]
29 December 2017 (online)
What is homoeopathic philosophy?—It is an understanding of the various phenomena of reaction to the like-drug-stimulus, supplied by the homoeopathic remedy. It not only deals with the choice of the drug, but teaches us how to use it.
There is nothing more true in the world than this: what we sow, that we shall reap. In homoeopathy, especially in the treatment of chronic diseases, we shall get out what we put in. If we expect the impossible we shall be disappointed. If we despair and say “ incurable,” we shall miss many unexpected triumphs. If we sow mistakes we shall reap failures. And out of failure comes disheartenment and loss of faith in our work. The “efficacy of homoeopathy in chronic diseases” depends on two factors that make for success on the part of the practitioner, viz., knowledge and faithfulness.
To begin with, we need to know our work from start to finish.
To prescribe remedies peculiar to the homoeopathic school is not enough. To understand the “grading” of symptoms (that is to say, their relative importance as regards the choice of the remedy) is not enough; to know our way blindfold about the repertory, and to use it constantly in prescribing, is not enough. To prescribe according to the Law of Similars, is not enough. To be able to hit the drug is much; but it is not everything.
It is the right and necessary beginning; but it is only the beginning. To prescribe only high potencies—or low —is not enough.
Hahnemann, who gave us the Law of Similars: who showed us the relative value of symptoms: who told us how to use the repertories: and how to be led by them to the materia medica: gave us, besides this, a very great deal more. And unless we go the whole way with him we need not expect (as he warns us) ever to see “the efficacy of homoeopathy in chronic diseases.”
*This article is a reprint of a previously published article. For citation purposes, please use the original publication details; Br Hom J 1915; 5: 5–21.