by Peter Morrell
Kentianism
Dr James Tyler KentKent also created the first coherent,
persuasive and highly influential philosophy, which has largely gone unchallenged within the
movement. It was formulated as a synthesis of Swedenborgian mysticism [Winston, op cit,
pp.166-7] and the more romantic portions of Hahnemann’s Organon and the Miasm Theory
of The Chronic Diseases [see Kent, 1900, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy].However, as might be apparent, Kent’s
homeopathy seems rooted in a rather dogmatic and puritanical attitude, and seems to derive
from a pedantically scholastic and uncritical reverence for everything Hahnemann wrote.
“Kentianism, then, was metaphysical, dogmatic, puritanical and
millennial. Homoeopaths who failed to achieve results with the high dilutions lacked
intellectual skill and rigour, as well as the moral fibre for the arduous task of
identifying the simillimum. In short, so far as Kentians were concerned, the faithless
were responsible for the corruption and decline of the movement.” [Treuherz, 1983]It is deductive and didactic and denies
that the facts of the outer world are in any sense superior to, or an arbiter for,
theoretical ‘principles’. In that sense it seems stubbornly medieval in its extreme
deductivism. It turns its back completely on the empirical approach of scientific
rationalism and thus on allopathy. This stubborn determination to studiously ignore the rest
of medicine and the ‘ideological push’ of the last 200 years, makes it appear to the modern
eye, as reactionary, hard-line and perverse.
“You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way
down from his innermost spiritual, to his outermost natural.” [Kent, 1926, Lesser
Writings]
‘Experience has a place in science, but only a confirmatory place. It
can only confirm that which has been discovered through principle or law guiding in the
proper direction. Experience leads to no discoveries, but when man is fully indoctrinated
in principle that which he observes by experience may confirm the things that are
consistent with law.’ [ibid. p.40]This passage, which seems to typify Kent,
makes sense only to a follower of pure dogma; Hahnemann, for example, would have totally
disagreed by saying that ‘experience’ had taught him all he knew. Science, like
homeopathy, is rooted in observations and experiments in the outer world, not in the
enforcement of dogmas.Kent seems to place ‘the cart before the
horse’ by stressing the philosophy and principles of homeopathy over and above the simple
fact that it is primarily a system of therapeutics in which the progress of the patient is
always far more important than the religious [or other] beliefs of the practitioner. In
every science principles derive from observations, and should not be allowed to dictate
them.Maybe this ideal of detachment and
emotional neutrality even science subtly fails to comply with at times. Science occasionally
gainsays the event before it happens and in effect dictates the outcome or ‘spin’ which
should be placed upon some experimental data. This may be based upon theoretical
considerations, political or financial factors. For example, the allopathic view of most
clinical trials of unorthodox medicine, can hardly be described as ‘emotionally neutral’
or detached.However, as one of the most important
homeopaths after Hahnemann, Kent has had a big influence as a theoretician, a practitioner,
a writer and as a teacher of homeopathy. His influence has been especially strong on
American, Indian and British homeopathy [see Nicholls, 1988, p.186], while the Continentals
seem to have been largely untouched by his influence, except in Switzerland and the
influence of Dr. Pierre Schmidt. In the case of India, their delight in homeopathy in
general and Kentianism specifically might be contingent to some degree upon their own
general interest in philosophical aphorisms and religious matters. Homeopathy supplies them
both; Kent supplies them in profusion.
Immanuel SwedenborgAs a follower of the Christian mystical
sect of Immanuel Swedenborg, Kent delivered a blend of Hahnemann’s Organon and miasm
theory, spiritual forces and a crude psychology, comprising only will, understanding and
intellect [see Aphorisms]. Some details of Kent’s ‘psychology’ and his ‘hierarchies’
are discussed by Taylor [1997, pp.5-7], elaborated by Vithoulkas [1980, pp.23-57 and
especially pp.46-7 and pp.23-25], and considered by Sharma [1995, pp.39-40]. Kent approached
his philosophy with typical vigour. He viewed all Hahnemann’s works and especially The
Organon with a fundamentalist zeal, seeking to amplify and reinterpret every word of the
Master, much like a theology scholar or biblical commentator. His Lectures On Philosophy,
for example, form quite literally a rambling Swedenborgian commentary to the first half of
Hahnemann’s Organon. To him these were precious and immutable homeopathic truths
that it is sacrilege even to question, let alone dilute, negotiate or compromise. He even
goes as far as saying:
‘Can man meditate and become an Atheist? A man who cannot believe in God cannot
become a Homoeopath.’[Kent, 1926, Aphorisms]It is especially in Kent’s rather
arrogant use of language, which hits us when reading his works, which really illustrates
this fundamentalism and the precious certainty of his approach to homeopathy. The
following quote from many possible ones, clearly demonstrates this:
‘…beware of the opinions of men of science. Hahnemann has given us
principles…it is law that governs the world and not matters of opinion or hypotheses. We
must begin by having a respect for law, for we have no starting point unless we base our
propositions on law.’ [Kent, 1900, Lectures, p.18]Kent infers that homeopaths must base
their whole approach upon the hard dogmatism of these ideas, which he elevates to the
status of certitudes, and not upon the ever-shifting ideas of ‘mere men’. He is claiming a
great authority and power behind such ‘immutable principles’, a power which like some
divine form, stands ‘above and behind us’ and which we dare not abrogate or dilute for
fear of our Soul’s damnation.As an attitude, this is so
indistinguishable from that of fundamentalist religion, that it is clearly apparent how
this form of homeopathy possessed, and generated for itself, so many problems with
creative and imaginative people who much prefer to experiment and find truths out for
themselves, e.g. Samuel Hahnemann. This whole approach denies anyone the privilege or
luxury of that kind of freedom. Total and unquestioning devotion to a given creed seems to
be the basis of Kentianism, not reason or real-world experiment. As to whether Kent was
truly a Hahnemannian homeopath see Hehr, 1995 and Cassam, 1999.It is especially when he lapses into the
moral sphere of homeopathy that his deep dogmatism shows itself. When he is speaking
purely about homeopathy, which is rare, he does well, but as soon as he enters human
affairs, a certain clearly-recognisable ‘Bible-punching’ tone seems to shines through. As
the following quotes clearly demonstrate:
‘It is law that governs the world and not matters of opinion or
hypothesis. We must begin by having a respect for law…’ [Kent, 1900, p.18]‘This means law, it means fixed
principles, it means a law as certain as that of gravitation…our principles have never
changed, they have always been the same and will remain the same…’ [Kent, 1900, p.28]
‘Had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race,
the other two chronic diseases would have been impossible and susceptibility to acute
diseases would have been impossible…’ [ibid. p.126]Kent would have no dealings with
allopaths nor with low-dilutionists, who were pejoratively portrayed as ‘mongrel,
milk-and-water half-homeopaths’. Homeopathy was seen very dogmatically by them as pure
classical homeopathy as ‘laid down in tablets of stone by the master’ or nothing. This
narrow, simplistic and somewhat inflexible view of homeopathy had split American
homeopathy right down the middle, causing a very acrimonious clash of ideologies. It is
generally conceded that this bitter wrangling contributed significantly to the precipitous
decline of homeopathy in the USA during the first half of this century [Kaufman, Coulter,
Rothstein, Gevitz, 1988].
