HOMOEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY AND MODERN MEDICINE



Having found it, as he supposes, he prepares to administer a serum or a vaccine, vainly imagining that he can effect a cure that way. The patient may, and often does, recover but the dean of Corneal University Medical College is reported to have recently said substantially, in a public address, that “any case of disease which recovered under serum or vaccine treatment would have got well anyhow.” so I am not alone in my strictures upon that kind of treatment. I could cite many others to the same effect it time permitted. But I will only quote briefly from a recent lecture by Professor James Ewing of cornell, generally recognized as one of the greatest pathologists of the world.

Professor Ewing says:

“there are limitations to the significance of the purely. bacteriological knowledge of disease. The old morphologists. believed that bacteriology could never give a complete. explanation of disease-a view which receives increasing. support in modern times. Modern bacteriology is getting. away from the study of bacteria themselves and turning more. and more to the questions of predisposing and contributing causes of disease. In other words, it is reverting to the field of general pathology”. And again;

“The acute interest in immunology is not quite so intense as it was five years ago. when bacteriology takes refuge in almost invisible filterable viruses, it comes to a dead standstill, as in influenza and poliomyelitis”.

And still again:

“Much more can be accomplished by study of the clinical conditions under which disease develops!”.

Thus Professor Ewing, on this important subjects aligns himself substantially with those followers of Hahnemann who have never departed from his strict, inductive,individualizing method in therapeutics, based upon pure clinical observations and experience,and guided by the natural law of cure.

And now, in the time that remains to me, let me try to give a brief and somewhat cursory review of homoeopathic philosophy as it has been gradually developed since the time of Hahnemann.

Primarily the philosophy of homoeopathy, as originated by Hahnemann and developed by later thinkers, is based upon the recognition of Life as the fundamental energy, power, principle and substance of the universe, individualized in every living being. It is distinctively a vitalistic philosophy. It recognizes life in the abstract as energy, and in all its manifestations in the concrete as a force. It holds that, in the last analysis, all energy is living energy.

It recognizes life in organism as the primary and direct cause of all organic functioning. Life is the motive power here in the same sense that electricity is a motive power in mechanics. Functioning normally the organism is in the state of order, or health. Functioning abnormally as a result of some influence inimical to life the organism is in a state of disorder,or disease. Health and disease are not thing, or entities, but conditions or states of the organism in which life resides. Disease is merely a morbid or disorderly vital process, not a thing in itself, as orthodox medicine implies and as we are apt to think.

Homoeopathic philosophy teaches that the things that cause or cure disease do not directly and solely by virtue of their own inherent powers or properties, but in conjunction with, and by reason of, the existence of life-in-organism which alone has the power to react. Medicines act only because the living organism has the power to react to their impression. A medicine makes no impression on a dead body because there is no living principle in it to react. As Grauvogl put it: “Substances taken into the organism from without, remain passive the organism, while the organism toward them active”.

Observe, I am referring to organic vital, not inorganic chemical reactions. Inorganic chemical reactions in the external world are of an entirely different order. Life is a chemistry of its own,which man can only feebly initiative. Certain chemical actions and reactions are constantly going on in the living body, but they are conditioned and modified by the existence of the individualized life principle. These latter we recognize as physiological or pathogenic chemico-vital operations which take place only in the living body. The cannot be reproduced in their entirety in the laboratory. There is always something lacking-something which eludes the chemist-and that something is Life, which cannot be created by man.

Imprecisely the same way as in regard to life, the homoeopathic philosophy is based upon the recognition of Mind,in its subconscious and conscious aspects, as the intelligent power and principle of the universe, individualizing itself in every material concrete form.

Stuart Close
Stuart M. Close (1860-1929)
Dr. Close was born November 24, 1860 and came to study homeopathy after the death of his father in 1879. His mother remarried a homoeopathic physician who turned Close's interests from law to medicine.

His stepfather helped him study the Organon and he attended medical school in California for two years. Finishing his studies at New York Homeopathic College he graduated in 1885. Completing his homeopathic education. Close preceptored with B. Fincke and P. P. Wells.

Setting up practice in Brooklyn, Dr. Close went on to found the Brooklyn Homoeopathic Union in 1897. This group devoted itself to the study of pure Hahnemannian homeopathy.

In 1905 Dr. Close was elected president of the International Hahnemannian Association. He was also the editor of the Department of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder. Dr. Close taught homeopathic philosophy at New York Homeopathic Medical College from 1909-1913.

Dr. Close's lectures at New York Homeopathic were first published in the Homeopathic Recorder and later formed the basis for his masterpiece on homeopathic philosophy, The Genius of Homeopathy.

Dr. Close passed away on June 26, 1929 after a full and productive career in homeopathy.