Per JW
Classical Homeopathy
Kent is the “originator” of the term ‘Classical’ in referring to Hahnemannian homeopathy.
He used the term to set himself and his followers apart from the Eclectics and the combination prescribers.
In his Lesser Writings, on the fifth page of his Precepts and Aphorisms:
“Anything which looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be scientific when disorderly application of law is made.”
"In the "Homoeopathician" in 1912, Kent wrote:
"This state of affairs is by no means confined to our college and hospitals. Throughout the entire local profession conditions are much the same. The classical homeopathic prescribers are few in number, and seem to represent a fast-disappearing type."
The first “use” of the word "Classical" to describe a specific way of practicing homeopathy was, as far as I know, coined by George Vithoulkas and Bill Gray in 1978.
The term “Classical Homeopathy” was coined by Bill Gray and George Vithoulkas in about 1975 to distinguish between the homeopathy that looks at the whole case/totality and treats that which needs to be treated, and all the rest-- which was cook-book prescribing of “this for that”, prescribing on the allopathic disease name, and using multiple remedies
(i.e., polypharmacy)-- all which was in use at the time.
also
Per JW
The understanding of “Constitutional”, came in with Kent after 1900
from Kent's Minor Writings,
edited by K. H. Gypser and published by Haug.
the first presentation on "Constitutional prescribing” to the UK Faculty of Homeopathy by Ocatvia Lewin in 1903-- first time in print.
Lynn
---------------------
Joy Lucas wrote:
--
Imagine Peace
Terms Classical and Constitutional was Feeling of persecution
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Terms Classical and Constitutional was Feeling of persecution
Thanks Lynn, as always. fwiw I was trying to actually locate the beginnings of the contemporary popularity of the term 'constitutional'. Where I did my formal training George was a big influence and the word was used all the time more so than the term 'classical'- I wonder how much it was used in Kent's time?
Joy
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Lynn Cremona wrote:
Joy
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Lynn Cremona wrote:
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Terms Classical and Constitutional was Feeling of persecution
Perhaps what we need is to decide on the distinctions we'd find it useful to draw and use terms that most clearly draw them, or at least get out of the habit of using terms that cause endless confusion.
The classical vs the non-classical homoeopath
The misinterpretation of the term "classical homoeopath" as a homoeopath who has decided to practise in a certain way rather than as a homoeopath well-equipped to practise homoeopathy has given rise to the convenience that there might be kinds of homoeopathy to practise other than the kind of the "classical" homoeopaths. But this is a fundamental misconception of the term's intent. Clearly Kent's use of "classical" as quoted here denotes an approach to learning and thinking, not an approach to practice. Kent used the word to distinguish degrees of understanding, not degrees of homoeopathicity.
A classical education is one that, rather than being designed to equip the student to perform specific tasks, equips the student with understanding and skills both broad and deep, with a view to enabling the student to advance the relevant art or science. What can be difficult to appreciate for those with no understanding of homoeopathy is that both Kent's and Vithoulkas's use of the term "classical homoeopath" refers not to a decision as to how to practise homoeopathy but rather to an ability to practise it.
The conscientious application of true understanding and hard-won skill in homoeopathy is not a convenience (or inconvenience) of homoeopathic practice; it is the only basis for homoeopathic practice.
The fundamentals are what distinguish homoeopathy from allopathy. Without the fundamentals, so-called homoeopaths invariably flounder around in a sea of polypharmaceuticals, phantom aggravations, untested medicines, nonexistent medicines, and esoteric grand speculations dignified as theories, intuitions, and insights concerning medicinal indications and the mechanics of medicinal effects and practitioner influence.
The classical homoeopath is the homoeopath whose understanding and skills are grounded in the fundamentals. Naturally such a homoeopath practises homoeopathy; not polypharmacy, not sympathetic magic, not speculative medicine of any stripe.
Homoeopathy is not a free-for-all; it is an approach (prescribe the most similar medicine) based in an observation (cures result). Those without the understanding of this basic principle do not practise "unclassical" homoeopathy; they practise something else altogether, by which the medicine has no particular relationship to the patient. We call such a lack of relationship allopathy.
Any conscientious homoeopath appreciates that the "this for that" approach to medical practice that JW refers to has failure built into it; that it is an inherently allopathic approach to prescribing a medicine meant to have a homoeopathic relationship to the patient.
Constitutional vs non-constitutional prescribing
Similar overinterpretation of "constitutional" is responsible for the suggestion that Kent would have, for instance, prescribed Calc. carb. for any illness, including acute illnesses, in a patient with chronic Calc. carb. symptoms, though Kent himself clearly discusses Belladonna states in the chronic Calc. carb. patient and does not recommend Calc. carb. for such states.
But Kent's concern with prescribers who did not practise constitutionally was that they were prescribing this for that, not prescribing as best they could the medicine with the most homoeopathic relationship to the patient's state of illness.
Are "classical" and "constitutional" useful terms any longer?
Since "classical" is so open to misinterpretation as an invitation to call all allopathic practices "non-classical" homoeopathy, and "constitutional" is so easily misunderstood to be an invitation to ignore the symptoms in front of us, perhaps alternative terms would better draw the distinctions we're trying to draw.
The misunderstanding of "classical" as applying to practice has indirectly given rise to entire schools of pseudo-homoeopathy. As one or two on this list regularly points out, they won't go away simply because they're based on misconceptions. Similarly, the misunderstanding of "constitutional" as a licence to overlook the symptoms of acute illnesses will not go away. But we can at least educate ourselves to understand that there is homoeopathy -- based on known homoeopathicity between pathogenetic symptoms and natural symptoms -- and then there is everything else.
There seems to me to be no useful function at all for the term classical homoeopathy. There is homoeopathy, and then there is prescribing for someone's bits. If we wish to distinguish between approaches to the genuinely homoeopathic method of prescription, calling any of them classical doesn't seem particularly useful; they are all based in the fundamentals, and a classical homoeopath might choose any of them.
It may be equally confusing to call reliance on chronic symptoms in an acute prescription a constitutional approach. The acute symptoms too are constitutional, and the term constitutional was developed to highlight the totality of the patient's state rather than its chronicity. A more straightforward way to discuss that approach might be to refer to it as chronic prescribing for acute illness.
Cheers --
John
The classical vs the non-classical homoeopath
The misinterpretation of the term "classical homoeopath" as a homoeopath who has decided to practise in a certain way rather than as a homoeopath well-equipped to practise homoeopathy has given rise to the convenience that there might be kinds of homoeopathy to practise other than the kind of the "classical" homoeopaths. But this is a fundamental misconception of the term's intent. Clearly Kent's use of "classical" as quoted here denotes an approach to learning and thinking, not an approach to practice. Kent used the word to distinguish degrees of understanding, not degrees of homoeopathicity.
A classical education is one that, rather than being designed to equip the student to perform specific tasks, equips the student with understanding and skills both broad and deep, with a view to enabling the student to advance the relevant art or science. What can be difficult to appreciate for those with no understanding of homoeopathy is that both Kent's and Vithoulkas's use of the term "classical homoeopath" refers not to a decision as to how to practise homoeopathy but rather to an ability to practise it.
The conscientious application of true understanding and hard-won skill in homoeopathy is not a convenience (or inconvenience) of homoeopathic practice; it is the only basis for homoeopathic practice.
The fundamentals are what distinguish homoeopathy from allopathy. Without the fundamentals, so-called homoeopaths invariably flounder around in a sea of polypharmaceuticals, phantom aggravations, untested medicines, nonexistent medicines, and esoteric grand speculations dignified as theories, intuitions, and insights concerning medicinal indications and the mechanics of medicinal effects and practitioner influence.
The classical homoeopath is the homoeopath whose understanding and skills are grounded in the fundamentals. Naturally such a homoeopath practises homoeopathy; not polypharmacy, not sympathetic magic, not speculative medicine of any stripe.
Homoeopathy is not a free-for-all; it is an approach (prescribe the most similar medicine) based in an observation (cures result). Those without the understanding of this basic principle do not practise "unclassical" homoeopathy; they practise something else altogether, by which the medicine has no particular relationship to the patient. We call such a lack of relationship allopathy.
Any conscientious homoeopath appreciates that the "this for that" approach to medical practice that JW refers to has failure built into it; that it is an inherently allopathic approach to prescribing a medicine meant to have a homoeopathic relationship to the patient.
Constitutional vs non-constitutional prescribing
Similar overinterpretation of "constitutional" is responsible for the suggestion that Kent would have, for instance, prescribed Calc. carb. for any illness, including acute illnesses, in a patient with chronic Calc. carb. symptoms, though Kent himself clearly discusses Belladonna states in the chronic Calc. carb. patient and does not recommend Calc. carb. for such states.
But Kent's concern with prescribers who did not practise constitutionally was that they were prescribing this for that, not prescribing as best they could the medicine with the most homoeopathic relationship to the patient's state of illness.
Are "classical" and "constitutional" useful terms any longer?
Since "classical" is so open to misinterpretation as an invitation to call all allopathic practices "non-classical" homoeopathy, and "constitutional" is so easily misunderstood to be an invitation to ignore the symptoms in front of us, perhaps alternative terms would better draw the distinctions we're trying to draw.
The misunderstanding of "classical" as applying to practice has indirectly given rise to entire schools of pseudo-homoeopathy. As one or two on this list regularly points out, they won't go away simply because they're based on misconceptions. Similarly, the misunderstanding of "constitutional" as a licence to overlook the symptoms of acute illnesses will not go away. But we can at least educate ourselves to understand that there is homoeopathy -- based on known homoeopathicity between pathogenetic symptoms and natural symptoms -- and then there is everything else.
There seems to me to be no useful function at all for the term classical homoeopathy. There is homoeopathy, and then there is prescribing for someone's bits. If we wish to distinguish between approaches to the genuinely homoeopathic method of prescription, calling any of them classical doesn't seem particularly useful; they are all based in the fundamentals, and a classical homoeopath might choose any of them.
It may be equally confusing to call reliance on chronic symptoms in an acute prescription a constitutional approach. The acute symptoms too are constitutional, and the term constitutional was developed to highlight the totality of the patient's state rather than its chronicity. A more straightforward way to discuss that approach might be to refer to it as chronic prescribing for acute illness.
Cheers --
John