title: Was Kent a Hahnemannian?
abstract: This article voices concern at the trend among an influential section of homeopaths the world over, to jettison Hahnemann's similimum principle and replace it with Kent's almost exclusive concentration on mental and psychic symptoms. This concern raises the question whether Kent was a true Hahnemannian. In order to discuss this question, two schools of thoughts are investigated. The first argues that Hahnemann's theories were scientific whereas Kent's were metaphysical. The second criticises Kent's more severely for being metaphysical. At the same time, it accuses Hahnemann himself of increasingly losing his way, with increasing age, into metaphysical homeopathy. The author believes there was no break in Hahnemann's thinking as alleged, but a gradual development with increasing experience, together with judicious use of rational insight, when scientific explanation was not yet available. The yardstick used to accuse Hahnemann of being metaphysical is crudely empirical and long outdated.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cassam
mesh_terms: D049672:History, 19th Century; D006705:Homeopathy / Q000266:history*; D008678:Metaphysics; D006113:United Kingdom