New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Kent has been hailed as a true disciple of Hahnemann. There should be a reassessment in light of the contrast between the view of Kent and Hahnemann.

Please comment your valued views regarding this statement.

There is a sincere request not to mis-understand this idea of reassessment. We are very small to say about these great stalwarts. But understanding these stalwarts are necessary. They were also human beings as we are.



LINK: British Journal: Was Kent A Hahnemannian?

Views: 1245

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Kent is more Hahnemanian. General opposition is, “He followed Swedenborg philosophy. But you read Hahnemann’s Organon and Kent’s lectures, you don’t feel that you are reading some thing different. In clinic Hahnemann or Kent you follow, it is same. Concept of Vital Force itself is difficult for Westerners to digest .Hahnemann himself changed his ideas.
High potencies- once Hahnemann gave idea of potency. Kent took it forward. Hahnemann never limited the level of potency.
Dry doses: What Kent says is correct. Quantity has no role .Dynamic level of disease is to be matched with dynamic level of medicine. One pill or ten pills taken at time won’t change the potency or dynamic level. Kent was not alive when 6th edition was published.
Miasm -Hahnemann himself was not clear about Miasm. He says it was infection. But to get infected you have to have Miasmatic-Tendency.
No body can exactly follow the leader. Certain INDIVIDUALITY will be there. Kent never claimed he is different than Hahnemann. Unnecessary controversy. Kent developed further more of Hahnemann. HAHNEMANN IS NOT END OF HOMOEOPATHY. HE IS ONLY BEGINNING.
Thanks Dr.Ravindra for the reply. Let the debate continue.

Kent differed in philosophical outlook and also in his idea that the patient stand central, while Hahnemann stressed the diseased state. However, it is the person who is diseased. Hahnemann may have inadvertently caused some misunderstanding, in his desire to be "scientific" and leave the personal out.

Ket's lectures on the philosophy discussed the 5th edition of the Organon and thus it may appear he spoke differently, while the context in which he spoke must be taken into consideration. Von Boenninghausen made Hahnemann aware there is no limit to dilution and succussion - hence Hanemann's notion that "the dose can never be small enough" and his development of the LM potencies.

Thanks Sir. As you already said, Dr.Hahnemann stressed upon the diseased state. Let us refer Aph.3. He talks about the disease, indication first,then the rest later. In aph.104, he talks about drawing the totality of the symptoms of disease. Obviously this should not be misunderstood. He says draw the totality of the symptoms of the disease which will lead you to the characterisic symptoms of the patient, which will then lead to a correct similimum. Great isn't it?
No, Nilanjana, it should not be misunderstood, but we should also never forget that it is not a set of symptoms walking into the clinic, but a person, who displays those symptoms. We should never forget the personal in our dealings, because we treat a diseased person.

Sir, you may have missed my point, I also said about the characteritic symptoms i.e. in aph 153which lead to the similimum.

Until and unless we know the common symptoms of diseases, how will we know the uncommon, characteristic , peculiar symptoms?

Hanji, I think I missed it. Nonetheless you have made valid points. Thanks for letting me know.
With all your blessings Sir.

Dear Members

The problem arises from the observation, that Kent was teaching a different homeopathy than he was practicing. Alos in his earlier years he held opinions which were opposed to his later publications. then from thos contradictions later homeopths made up their own mind and published their ideas as being Kentian. Virtoulkas being on prominent contributor.

In order to do justice to Kent, we need to return to his original publications and follow his time-line. Gypsers editionof Kents minor writings is a comprehensive and complete compilation.

Kents day-to-day case notes were destroyed in a fire, so we have to rely on the few published cases in periodicals.

it is a worth while exercise to take those cases and use his repertory, to see how reliable it is -- an eye opener to me when I did that almost 20 years ago. (there was a 10% chance to even get close to the remedy he used)

So -- is there a need to discuss Kent?

IMO.: Not really, as it is clear nowadays, that Kent's repertory is lacking reliability,and his ideas of selecting the remedy and applying it are outdated, when knowing homeopathy .

it is a worth while exercise to take those cases and use his repertory, to see how reliable it is -- an eye opener to me when I did that almost 20 years ago. (there was a 10% chance to even get close to the remedy he used)


@Hans & Sajjad.


I like to know how Kent was apparently such a good homoeopath, if you both claim that his method gave you different results from his. It is maybe not so much due to his method, but our failure to grasp it that we come to such different results.

Hi Kavi

I like to know what you think was Kent's method?


HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...