I think what is at issue here is the fundamental differences between two paradigms. Hahnemann was a child of the Enlightenment. His approach to healing and medicine was based on the new models of science that were emerging at that time. In fact, he may have been the first to bring the scientific, inductive method to the practice of medicine, with his emphasis on careful observation and rigorous experimentation (the word 'proving' is merely an anglisized version of 'prufung', which means experiment in German). This new worldview was largely concerned with the material world and how it works, believing that knowledge is gained through experience (the word 'experiment' has the same root). [It should be noted that Hahnemann was not a materialist, although he subscribed to that methodology.]

The previous (Aristotelian) paradigm viewed the world as more or less static. It was believed that every thing had an unchanging nature or essence. To know a thing was to grasp, to conceptualize that essence. It was also believed that the world, Nature, God could be known through reason alone, and deductive reasoning was used to this end. This is the worldview of constitutional homeopathy.

David Bohm, the theoretical physicist who worked with both Einstein and Krishnamurti, explains that the word 'theory' has the same root as the word 'theatre', and that a theory is just a way of looking. So, these different paradigms present different ways of looking and understanding the patient, the world, sickness, health, homeopathic remedies and practice.

I don't personally believe that each of us has a static, unchanging nature that correlates with a homeopathic remedy. And I like to begin a case by simply looking at the symptoms of the patient. However, neither do I discount the insights of modern homeopaths into the behaviors and mental/emotional workings of those afflicted with various imbalances. This way of looking can be especially useful in those deep, chronic cases that only need a single remedy for cure, and which have pronounced derangement in the mental sphere. The problem, as I see it, with constitutional homeopathy is its tendency to view all cases as essentially "constitutional" in nature.

[ 01. April 2004, 21:34: Message edited by: Shali ]