Epistemology and philosophy

All science is defined by an object and a method. Although the homeopathic method is well codified, despite many clumsiness in its formulation, its object has remained, to this day, to say the least, largely undefined. In recent years, I have made several attempts to define the purpose of homeopathy and I have come to think, over time, that the object of homeopathy, which we take into account, what we are acting on, what our semiology describes, is simply the patient as a living individual.

This definition seems to me quite adequate, precise and satisfactory. It precisely describes our object of observation, what we are acting on, while being fully biologically, medically and scientifically receivable. It also makes it possible to differentiate and articulate, with rigor and logic, our object to that of biomedicine.

The idea of ​​the living individual contains three essential dimensions that perfectly summarize the homeopathic approach, while constituting a scientific and biological definition that is acceptable and intelligible to all.

The concept of the individual expresses, very exactly, two things:

• → Being singular, unique, different from any other
• → Not to be divided, to be in-dividual, to be united.

The idea of ​​living refers to the idea that the most fundamental fact, the most essential characteristic of the living, animals and human beings, and that makes them disappear as soon as it disappears, is that they are alive, living every moment.

These three notions of singularity, unity or globality and living dimension are all three interrelated and inseparable. To say that its object is the living individual, is therefore to include homeopathy in the heart of biological reality. In addition, this definition allows the major pillars of homeopathy to find strong biological legitimacy.

Every living is, always, science has established it well, whether it is an animal or a human being, different from all other representatives of its kind and, therefore, singular and unique by definition. It thus appears biologically legitimate to study each in its singularity and, also, to prescribe a treatment that is also individualized.

This does not disqualify, however, more standardized treatments, in any case, totally impersonal, biomedicine. Simply, it reminds us that, despite their effectiveness, they are more distant from the biological reality than homeopathic treatments.

The term individual must also be understood in the sense of in-dividual, impossible to separate, to divide. An individual, then, is not only a unique and singular being but a being that can not be separated and divided into "parts". It's a whole ".

We see, therefore, that homeopathy, which apprehends the sick subject taking into account all its manifestations, its different functions and organs, physical and psychic symptoms mixed, again, is in a fidelity all bio-logic to the living.

Here again, the fundamental indivisibility of the living does not disqualify, for all that, the biomedical approach. Hence the complementarity between biomedicine and homeopathy is clearly needed. To put a stent on a blocked artery is, therefore, legitimate and obeys what I will call a bio-logic of the "parts" constitutive of the whole (but to which the whole thing is never reduced). Similarly for insulin replacement therapy in patients whose endocrine function is permanently deteriorated.

The term living, applied to animals and to the human being, is not equivalent to that of mortal. Indeed, mortal is an adjective and the individual is, in fact, potentially mortal (or ontologically mortal, that is to say he knows he will die one day) but until his last breath he is constantly alive, living. Living means, therefore, here, always "living". And it must be clearly seen that the play of homeopathic modalities, the collection of sensations, that of causalities, are all means of inscribing, or rather, observing the concrete and effective inscription of every disease in an experience of life. Sick, we live less well, more difficultly, more painfully, but we live anyway. And it is this alteration in pur way of living that homeopathy takes into account.

Here again, the objectifying approach of biomedicine is not disqualified for all that.

Without denigrating, nor denying the extraordinary interest of allopathic therapeutics, this very simple definition, and very precise, I insist, of the object of homeopathy, makes it possible to render all its legitimacy to the recourse to therapeutics, as the homeopathy, which optimize and promote the effectiveness of the natural self-healing potential. And here, too, an obvious complementarity appears.

The notion of the living individual seems to me to perfectly define the object of homeopathy and fully accounts for the scientific legitimacy of homeopathic individualization, globalisation as well as “live” “semiology. This notion, moreover, presents a great clarity of utterance, is easily intelligible and, behind its apparent simplicity, even banality, it inscribes, however, the homeopathic approach in a deep fidelity to the medical and biological reality.