Abstract
The terms ‘esoteric’ and ‘exoteric’ are used in German idealistic philosophy for the view from the inside (of the thinking process) and from the outside (on the thoughts that result). They can also be used to present new perspectives of homoeopathy.
Homoeopathic literature generally explains homoeopathy esoterically, i.e. as seen through the eyes of devoted practitioners, in terms of faithful obedience to universal laws, eternal truth, divine revelation, etc. In contrast to this, critical medical colleagues usually look at homoeopathy exoterically as a system based on speculation and dogmatism with no clear evidence of efficacy. The reaction to the critics’ exoteric view has divided homoeopaths into those who adopt the critics’ way of reasoning and try to prove their own claims scientifically, and those who ignore external criticism and just go on with their medical work. Both positions are one-sided and have severe shortcomings. Nevertheless, they have decisive practical impacts.
Faithful adherence to the doctrine of homoeopathy is likely to help physicians get a maximum effect out of it that would probably not be possible to achieve with a sceptical attitude towards its principles.
Limiting one’s horizon to a strictly esoteric view, however, may also be detrimental to the patient, if not balanced by a realistic exoteric view of one’s own limitations. A self-critical attitude may curtail otherwise possible clinical results, but in the long run a mixed position will be safer for patients, and is the only way of communicating and collaborating with mainstream medicine and legislators. Keeping the balance between an esoteric and an exoteric view of homoeopathy is an art, dependent on virtues and bound to ethics. Homoeopathy is therefore not merely a medical method. Its wise application also involves spiritual, artistic and ethical dimensions on the part of the practitioner.
