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: 1255

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There are two basic schools of thought


  1. One who considers homeopathy a materialistic science
  2. Second who considers homeopathic medicines are immaterial


Hahnemann was basically belongs to group one but also explained the dynamization process, which the 2nd second school of thought considers as immaterial.


Kent belongs to second school of thought by emphasizing on those symptoms which are linked with spiritualism/mental state that has no scientific explanation. He believes in more dynamization method, even to him, disease is also the manifestation of degradation of spiritualism. But Hahnemann talks about germs and pathology while discussing the causes. When Hahnemann talks about dynamization, then to him he does not extent to state of “immaterial”. Which second group of thought forcefully dragged it by presenting evidences which have no scientific reasonings.


Today, those modern day homeopaths, who considers homeopathy is based on spiritualism are followers of Kent. These people believes homeopathic medicines are “immaterial” but wrongly defined potentized and dynamized medicines as “NOTHING” but something that can’t be understand yet.


There is also a group who considers homeopathic medicines are surely dynamized and potentized but do not be considered as “IMMETERIAL or nothing” but also do not have proof to prove it beyond Avogadros limit are mostly belongs to HAHNEAMANN group of thought.


Different theories and Research workd/studies are published that also explain many points but still have no answers to many objective questions. We should accept them as it is but do not declare them final. One should not come at open forum in authoritative tone and FORCE others to accept these theories unless the world of Scientific Community declared them “FINAL”.


Finally the Kent repertory. He only did compilation, if symptoms are wrong or not working then you can’t put blame on Kent. He only did clerical job and compiled the data in whatever format it was available. The advantage of Kent repertory is, it is written in common language as materia medica is written / compiled. It is a simple helping tool to reach at similimum remedy but this gives wrong result? I do not believe. As I find remedy but before prescribing it, I use my confirmative tests (CT) to declare it similimum remedy, therefore, no reason of mislead :)


In simple words ---
Hahnemann make a CAR & Kent teach us -How we can use this CAR for "different use"....:-)

Another useful link to Kent's life by Dr.Navneet Bidani


HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...