200 years ago, in 1817, confronted with the inability of his reviewers to grasp “the spirit of the homeopathic healing doctrine”, Hahnemann switched to a strictly empirical argumentation, demanding from his critics: “replicate it, but exactly and carefully”. Nevertheless, till today the worldwide dispute on homeopathy has been centered on theoretical issues.
However, even within this branch of contest, in the meantime an overwhelming quantity and quality of perspectives supporting and justifying homeopathy have been gathered by different sciences. Philosophically and epistemologically, homeopathy appears to be a phenomenological, hermeneutical, semiotic, holistic, and an individualizing art of healing, cognition-based, resource-orientated and salutogenetic, etc. Statistically and socio-economically, it seems to be effective in terms of costs and benefit, safe, unspoiled by notorious manipulations by the big players of the pharmaceutical industry, etc. In comparison, only a handful of aspects may seem to challenge homeopathy in principle. But, for instance, also the imputation of a missing active substance in homeopathic remedies is dependent on and plausible only within a framework of presuppositions, such as the materiality of everything and ultimacy of some “natural laws” hitherto known.
At this point, modern philosophy meets with the ancient epistemology of Jainism, especially its concepts of anekantavada, syadvada, and nayavada, i.e. pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, perspectivism, and partial standpoint as the outcome of purpose.
To beware of an impending monism and hegemony of a one-sided, narrowminded, and commercially driven ideology in health care systems, patients and doctors all over the world are challenged to advocate and insist on a polyperspective approach to life, medicine, and politics.
Dieser Post ist auch verfügbar auf: German