Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Complement Med Res . 2026 Apr 14;33(2):107–114. doi: 10.1159/000551108 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Show available content in en de fr Three New Philosophical Categories for Holistically Assessing Complementary Medicine, Derived from the History and Theory of Medicine Drei neue philosophische Kategorien für eine ganzheitliche Beurteilung der Komplementärmedizin, abgeleitet aus der Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin Trois nouvelles catégories philosophiques pour une évaluation holistique de la médecine complémentaire, dérivées de l’histoire et de la théorie de la médecine Josef M Schmidt Josef M Schmidt 1 Institute of Ethics, History, and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian’s University, Munich, Germany Find articles by Josef M Schmidt 1, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Institute of Ethics, History, and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian’s University, Munich, Germany ✉ Correspondence to: Josef M. Schmidt, [email protected] This article is based on a presentation at the XXV World Congress of Philosophy, at Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, on August 6, 2024. ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Sep 20; Accepted 2026 Feb 17; Issue date 2026 Apr. © 2026 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC) ( https://karger.com/Services/OpenAccessLicense ). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13078746 PMID: 41979991 Abstract Background Based on recent medical-historical research, the attempt is made to introduce three new philosophical categories for holistically assessing complementary medicine and delineate their characteristics, genealogy, and socio-economic background. Apart from modern, predominantly rational science and culture, the history and theory of medicine are able to reveal dimensions and traditions of thinking that in the modern age have obviously been neglected or forgotten. Summary As an example, homoeopathy appears to be constituted by what may be called lógos -thinking, hómoion -thinking and iásthai -thinking, thus connecting with three powerful traditions of thinking that can be traced back to Ancient Greece and pre-Socratic times. By contrast, modern technological medicine seems to be mainly fixed on lógos -thinking. Other realms of modern civilisation, such as science, art, education, politics, philosophy, and religion, to a large extent also suffer from a lack of, or are oblivious to, hómoion -thinking and iásthai -thinking. Key Messages The introduction of these new categories may serve as a key to a raised awareness towards the shortcomings and one-dimensionality of the present lógos -driven world-view and for the opening up of a qualitatively richer multi-dimensional world and life. Keywords: History of medicine, Complementary medicine, Homoeopathy, Philosophy, Theory of medicine Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Basierend auf aktueller medizinhistorischer Forschung wird hier der Versuch unternommen, drei neue philosophische Katagorien einzuführen, mit denen die Komplementärmedizin ganzheitlich beurteilt und ihre Charakteristika, Herkunft und ihr sozioökonomischer Hintergrund dargestellt werden können. Neben der modernen, vorwiegend rationalen Wissenschaft und Kultur, kann die Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin Dimensionen und Traditionen des Denkens aufzeigen, die in der Moderne offenbar vernachlässigt oder vergessen wurden. Zusammenfassung Die Homöopathie zum Beispiel scheint konstituiert zu sein von sogenanntem lógos -, hómoion - und iásthai -Denken, wodurch sie verbunden ist mit drei mächtigen Denktraditionen, die sich bis ins alte Griechenland in die Zeit der Vorsokratiker zurückverfolgen lassen. Im Gegensatz dazu scheint die moderne technologische Medizin hauptsächlich auf lógos -Denken fixiert zu sein. Auch andere Bereiche moderner Zivilisation, wie Wissenschaft, Kunst, Erziehung, Politik, Philosophie und Religion, leiden zu einem großen Teil unter einem Mangel oder Vergessen von hómoion- und iásthai -Denken. Kernaussagen Die Einführung dieser neuen Kategorien mag als Schlüssel dienen zu einer erhöhten Bewusstheit bezüglich der Unzulänglichkeiten und Eindimensionalität des gegenwärtigen lógos -getriebenen Weltbildes und zur Eröffnung einer qualitativ reicheren multidimensionalen Welt und eines entsprechenden Lebens. Schlüsselwörter: Geschichte der Medizin, Komplementärmedizin, Homöopathie, Philosophie, Theorie der Medizin Résumé Contexte Sur la base de recherches récentes en histoire de la médecine, il est proposé d’introduire trois nouvelles catégories philosophiques permettant d’évaluer de manière holistique la médecine complémentaire et d’en délimiter les caractéristiques, la généalogie ainsi que l’arrière-plan socio-économique. Au-delà de la science et de la culture modernes, principalement rationnelles, l’histoire et la théorie de la médecine sont en mesure de révéler des dimensions et des traditions de pensée qui, à l’époque moderne, ont manifestement été négligées ou oubliées. Synthèse À titre d’exemple, l’homéopathie paraît être constituée de ce que l’on peut appeler la pensée lógos , la pensée hómoion et la pensée iásthai , s’inscrivant ainsi dans trois traditions de pensée puissantes que l’on peut faire remonter à la Grèce antique et à l’époque présocratique. À l’inverse, la médecine technologique moderne semble principalement fixée sur la pensée lógos . D’autres domaines de la civilisation moderne, tels que la science, l’art, l’éducation, la politique, la philosophie et la religion, souffrent eux aussi, dans une large mesure, d’un manque de pensée hómoion et de pensée iásthai , ou bien y demeurent indifférents. Messages clés L’introduction de ces nouvelles catégories peut servir de clé pour accroître la conscience des insuffisances et de l’unidimensionnalité de la vision du monde actuelle, guidée par le lógos , et pour ouvrir l’accès à un monde et à une vie multidimensionnels, qualitativement plus riches. Mots-clés: Histoire de la médecine, Médecine complémentaire, Homéopathie, Philosophie, Théorie de la médecine Introduction In spite of the perplexities it may cause to long-established rational scientists, this paper attempts to do something unheard-of or even impossible when trying to present a set of categories, one of which being rationality, the other two being similarity and healing. Of course, scholars from all over the world will agree that outside of rationality, in a strict sense, there may well be nothing to talk about. But since Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), at the latest, we know that in the process of discovering something new, intuition may sometimes “jump ahead light-footedly,” magically attracted towards its goal, while “calculative reason clumsily lags behind, looking for sustainers” [ 1 ]. So this presentation of a new approach may by no means be (yet) expected to meticulously list, let alone resolve, all problems, corollaries, or relationships to all possible positions and contexts within the history of philosophy or science. For those with an open mind and heart, however, it might nevertheless convey a glimpse, or a key to unlock a new, fresh way of thinking, perceiving, and performing. After that, there would certainly be much work to do in order to consolidate this draft by pigeonholing and connecting it with, or distancing it from, a number of academic traditions. Recently, a new approach has been suggested to not only assess the history and theory of medicine but also philosophy, science, economy, culture, and religion in a new light [ 2 ]. The main thesis is that human civilisation rests on three powerful traditions of thinking that can be historically and philosophically traced back to Ancient Greece in pre-Socratic times. These can be called λόγος -thinking, ὅμοιον -thinking, and ἰᾶσθαι -thinking or, in latinised transcription, lógos -thinking, hómoion -thinking, and iásthai -thinking [ 3 ]. Their meaning, genealogy, and relevance will roughly be explained in the following. Although all three are present and, in fact, constitutive of our culture, one of them, lógos -thinking, in the modern age, seems to have acquired hegemonic status at the cost of hómoion -thinking and iásthai -thinking [ 4 ]. While modern medicine, science, and philosophy tend to be dominated by rationality in the sense of lógos -thinking, geared to the socio-economic framework conditions of Western capitalistic societies, one way to (re-)discover and become aware of the widely lost dimensions of hómoion -thinking and iásthai -thinking would be the medical-historical and philosophical study of ancient medical concepts in terms of the history of ideas and paradigms. The Epistemological Problem Inasmuch as natural sciences methodologically confine themselves to the observation of objects that can be measured, quantified, objectified, reproduced, standardised, etc., they may acquire knowledge in accordance with the requirements of markets, industries, factories, companies, production, consumption, etc. They may, however, as a matter of principle, not be in a position to grasp the meaning and multi-dimensionality of phenomena outside of their (pragmatic) reductionistic reach. Human or cultural studies, so-called “Geisteswissenschaften,” may, on the other hand, reflect on natural sciences, analyse their presuppositions, epistemology, limitations, etc., and put them into social, economic, or political context. Being theoretical sciences themselves, however, after having rationally deconstructed nearly everything (except themselves), they may get stuck in the trap of relativism or arbitrariness, according to the motto “anything goes” [ 5 ]. To escape from this deadlocked position in terms of critical theory, medicine’s history and theory may offer a way out, for, as an art of healing, medicine is concerned with and, in fact, has to treat real and (so to say) multi-dimensional patients. It can, therefore, never afford to become mere theory, prone to aporias and antinomies. If anywhere, in the practice of medicine, where theoretical concepts and pragmatic human “reality” are closely intertwined, epistemology and philosophy may find a kind of anchorage from where one may try to transcend the usual framework of rationalistic categories. Medical History and Philosophy However, modern high-tech medicine has been suggested, by an ample body of literature of criticism, to have substantially lost its mission and dedication to deal with human beings in an existential and compassionate sense. In fact, it has become, to a large extent, a compliant servant of the medical-industrial-pharmacological complex. Hence, this new form of impersonal iatro-technology may not serve as a paradigm to resolve the stagnation and lopsidedness in medical theory and philosophy. But in antique, pre-modern, and traditional medicine (and in homoeopathy, despite its founding only some 200 years ago), the history and theory of medicine may still hold a wealth of categories and dimensions that the modern “Zeitgeist” is unable or unwilling to realise. Three New Philosophical Categories In homoeopathy, e.g., three paradigmatic dimensions or traditions of thinking may be elaborated and distinguished; these being lógos -thinking, hómoion -thinking, and iásthai -thinking. Homoeopathy may serve here as a pars-pro-toto paradigm, being applicable to other forms of complementary medicine as well, such as Ayurveda, traditional Chinese medicine, or phytotherapy (see below). 1. Homoeopathy’s lógos -Dimension As a branch of drug therapy, homoeopathy was founded by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) in 1796, in the Era of Enlightenment, to be a rational method of healing, with an impetus to elevate medicine to the level of a natural science, possibly a mathematical one. It was conceptualised as a doctrine that is learnable, teachable, generalisable, reproducible, provable, etc. In fact, he entitled his seminal work “Organon of rational therapeutics” (1810) [ 6 ]. This may be considered its lógos -dimension. 2. Homoeopathy’s hómoion -Dimension Going deeper into its content, it may be realised that its focus and methodology are not about matter, causality, physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc., but mainly about qualities , both diagnostical as well as therapeutical. For Hahnemann, the symptom picture of a patient was the equivalent of a qualitative detuning of the vital force of an individual, to whose peculiar quality the healing remedy has to match in a relation of similarity. Being unintelligible to common causal rationality, this reasoning in terms of similarity may be called hómoion -thinking. 3. Homoeopathy’s iásthai -Dimension The actual dynamics of healing is, in homoeopathy, based on the principle that diseases can be cured by the capacity (or potency) of a remedy to produce similar symptoms in healthy humans, thus having the potential to augment or even aggravate the illness of the patient. The idea that the hurting may also be curative again transgresses the customary logic of counteracting evils by direct combat or elimination and connects – as will be shown in the following – to another specific tradition of thinking called iásthai -thinking. Relevance of These Dimensions These three dimensions, or paradigms of thinking, have been shown to be essential to the constitution of homoeopathy, and therefore indispensable in its comprehension or critique, resting as it does on three powerful traditions of thinking going back to the time of pre-Socratic philosophy [ 7 ]. They may be considered to be the three dimensions from which any practical art or science, even in the broadest sense, are built from (i.e., not only medicine, but also pedagogics, politics, religion, etc.). In order to fully comprehend their topicality and relevance, their genealogies, socio-economic backgrounds, and characteristics may have to be envisaged. 1. Genealogy of lógos -Thinking The origin of lógos -thinking in the sense of modern rationality can be dated to the 6th century BC and located within the Greek colonies in Ionia. There, prompted by the recent invention and rapid spread of coined money, the first philosophers, all at once, displayed a new way of prosaic thinking in terms of abstractness, impersonality, universality, homogeneity, unboundedness, etc. It was as if the characteristics of this new currency, being a general medium of exchange, means of payment, measure of value, store of purchasing power, etc., would be projected from commerce within the polis out into the cosmos . Instead of appreciating the natural variety and diversity of qualities of the lifeworld, as was the case in Homeric times as well as in Asia, each of the presocratic philosophers (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras) contrived a counterintuitive worldview based on just one abstract and impersonal principle, be it water, air, fire, number, nous , or atoms [ 8 ]. Without doubt, much differentiation and contextualisation must be and, in fact, has been applied to these claims, but these may never be satisfactorily repeated or explained within a few lines of a summarising and programmatic paper. However, what has been overlooked or not fully realised until recently are the threads that bind the centuries and cultures, despite all differences in detail. Lack of time and space, unfortunately, forces restriction to what is deemed essential. What is even more significant with the new paradigm of money is its precariousness. While natural things have a stable intrinsic value, the worth of money proves to be unreliable, depending on its circulation, trust on the part of the market participants, and its sanction by the state. But if this man-made contingent economic system solely rested on convention, being subject to potential change at any time, why should the old myths of Gods, cosmogony, virtues, ethics, etc., not also rest on mere convention? Eventually, the sophist Protagoras in the 5th century BC declared that “man be the measure of all things” [ 9 ]. 2. Genealogy of hómoion -Thinking hómoion -thinking, in the aforementioned sense, appeared for the first time in history as a philosophical concept amongst the pre-Socratic philosophers (Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Leucippus) under the notion “ hómoion - homoío ,” emphasising the perennial and archaic relation between similars that attract, like, and enjoy each other. Just as relatives, kins, clans, and families have a natural tendency to keep together, so it was assumed that also elements, such as earth, water, air, and fire, or qualities, such as sweet, bitter, sour, hot, etc., would tend to stick together, each with its own kind [ 10 ]. In religion, the relationship between similars had always played a crucial role; in fact, it may be considered to be the basic principle of all religions, in this case, the hómoion -connection between God or spirits and believer. Among philosophers, especially Socrates, in the 5th century BC, although ardently trying to rationalise everything by means of the new lógos -thinking, was at the same time always faithful to his daimónion ( δαιμόνιον ), a kind of inner voice unfathomable to logical reflection. Plato, in the 4th century BC, outlined his theory of ideas and the way of partaking in them ( méthexis , μέθεξις ) in analogy to the familiar hómoion -relationship with Gods. 3. Genealogy of iásthai -Thinking The concept that the hurting can also cure reaches back to the Cypria, i.e., ancient Greek myths of the 7th century BC [ 11 ]. It may be called iásthai -thinking, according to the classical oracle saying ho trósas kaí iásetai ( ὁ τρώσας καὶ ἰάσεται) , literally meaning “the one who has hurt will also cure.” It was related to the wound of king Telephos that could only be healed by his adversary Achilles, who had caused it. Bravely facing the violating agent and cultivating, taming, and integrating the threatening in a culture of advanced healing, rather than just trying to destroy or eliminate it, proves in fact to be a maxim and practice traceable throughout the history of philosophy, literature, theology, and medicine. Plato’s Socrates, in the 5th century BC, for example, described the punishment of unjust acts as the second-best way to bliss because only by suffering the penalty does the soul become purified, while without this it remains vile. For Aristotle in the 4th century BC, e.g., kátharsis ( κάθαρσις ), i.e., purification of the soul, may come about when spectators of a tragedy experience “compassion and fear ( eléou kaí phóbou , ἐλέου καὶ φόβου )” with, and of, the fate of the hero, thus outweighing and overcoming their own suffering and anxieties and, therefore, getting rid of them. Lucian in the 2nd century AD described how a student was “hit by the arrow of a wise philosopher amidst of his soul like a beam of light,” so that the only option left to him was “to do as Telephos and beg the one who had wounded him to heal him.” In a religious context, in the book Ecclesiastes (of the Old Testament), which originated in the 3rd century BC, the preacher Salomo compared “the words of the wise” with “thorns and spikes,” “given by a shepherd” [ 12 ], i.e., putting them into the context of hurting with benevolent intention. Finally, the joyous Christian message has been based on the narrative that Jesus, despite his being castigated and crucified, resurrected 2 days later, again to be present amongst his disciples. The theology deduced from this was the precept to follow Jesus Christ as a new paradigm and not to fear, but to accept pain and death as being the exemplary means of defeating them. Discussion Given the novelty of this three-dimensional approach, a number of questions may arise. First and foremost, the genealogy of our familiar lógos -thinking out of the spirit of money, i.e., it not resting on nature ( phýsis ) but on convention ( nómos ), as Aristotle had already put it [ 13 ], may come as a surprise or imposition to many modern scientists. This issue, however, has been dealt with in extenso elsewhere [ 14 – 16 ] and cannot be repeated here due to lack of space. Richard Seaford and Karl-Heinz Brodbeck, e.g., have discussed and refuted virtually all possible objections, each one on 1,200 pages in their relevant books [ 8 , 17 – 19 ]. So, it may be considered scientifically proven that we, as “money-subjects,” are not the allegedly autonomous origin, but rather a product of socio-economic developments that have shaped our society and thinking. In fact, it seems totally consistent and makes perfect sense that in capitalist societies where the turnover of money is the common denominator and the all-dominant goal, people are being educated and socialised from childhood in such a way as to meet their role as consumers, investors, and taxpayers, without questioning this frame of rationalistic bustle. Accordingly, our common starting point may be the Cartesian assumption that we, as researchers or analysts, are stable entities that may or may not gather and process data (and money) – without really being affected thereby in our putatively discrete identity. Contrary to acquiring knowledge by lógos -thinking, the process of gaining insight by way of hómoion - or iásthai may work under different presuppositions. Exposing oneself to the perception of similarity or suffering, by means of méthexis (partaking, participation) and cátharsis (dramatic purification), would put oneself at risk of an involuntary feedback effect that could touch, or move, us and change ourselves substantially. Or even more: to open up, e.g., the dimension of relations in terms of similarity, would require readiness on our part and preparation of ourselves, as a prerequisite to enable awareness of similarities at all. To recognise, e.g., loving kindness in others by resonance, we would have to develop or admit this quality in ourselves as well. And this may not be a matter of binary logic, with the only distinction being yes or no, but a graduated process. Qualities, e.g., the taste of a good wine, may be perceived on a scale from very rough to highly sophisticated – depending on the ability and intention of the individual subject. Extended and related to qualities and ideas at large, it may be stated empirically and historically that in this regard most people may live in relative dullness, while others may have perfected their senses and become a kind of artist or champion in certain perceptions. Hahnemann, in his early pre-homoeopathic writings, in a reply to scepticism about the “existence” of a gut instinct as well as of conscience, gave detailed instructions on how to develop and cultivate these entities to a degree that would not allow any doubt about their reality – indicating that these qualities or ideas do not exist independently of human minds and souls, but just as little may they be declared as non-existent [ 20 ]. Rather, it is about heeding and training. Analogously, the term iásthai may remain a paradoxical concept to people who are not ready to experience its validity and truth by voluntarily connecting with this idea and integrating it into their own self-awareness. Again, a leap of faith may be required to consider this dimension at least possible and to trust reliable forerunners to have contributed to this field for ages. Then, a wealth of historic literature as well as personal therapeutic experience may be interpreted within these lines or categories, and thus, the paradigm be more and more substantiated. At this point, it may become clear that to comprehend the three dimensions in their essence, we may have to leave our habitual and comfortable desktop position of being alleged sovereign masters of the universe, overviewing data and statistics on the monitor and deluding ourselves that we may thus understand and change the world, let alone the art of healing. In truth, we may be called upon to rethink our own individual being, personality, anthropology, worldview, philosophy, religion, culture, etc. We would have to search and find the three dimensions within ourselves, in our constitution and daily practice as living human beings. It may then be easier to find them everywhere, also in any realm of science – not only historically, but at any time, here and now, in principle. Whether or not there may be additional dimensions, apart from the three suggested here, may be an interesting academic question for lógos -bound scientists, but may be considered irrelevant from a pragmatic holistic view as long as no added value is demonstrated for possible alternatives. Occam’s razor may still be valid: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem [ 21 ]. Relevance for Complementary Medicine In its current form, the concept of three new philosophical categories for holistically assessing complementary medicine may prove to be a clue to enlighten and unscramble many shortcomings and inconsistencies in the integrative medicine scene. Primarily derived from homoeopathy in the broadest sense (including so-called involuntary homoeopathy, existing since time immemorial), the three dimensions may clearly help to better understand and guard genuine homoeopathy from modern aberrations, ultimately reappraising it as “homeo-patho-logy” [ 22 , 23 ]. Similar developments, due to an ever-increasing rationalisation of medicine, may also be detected in other complementary fields. Chinese medicine, e.g., has – for two milennia – encompassed a wealth of ideas and methods, from worshipping ancestors and expelling demons to Confucian concepts of universal correspondence and Daoist empirical knowledge about drugs, etc. [ 24 ], building up a complex world of medicine only comprehensible with a multi-dimensional approach. When in the 1970s the People’s Republic of China opened its trade with the West, the artificial product “traditional Chinese medicine” was formed, and the abbreviation “TCM” was coined and marketed – according to the desires and fears of a chemo- and techno-averse public in the West – as a kind of “soft medicine,” focussing on thin needles and exotic herbs. Zhen-jiu , literally meaning “pierce and burn,” was translated with “acupuncture” only; acupuncture points were assigned numbers and taught without reference to their ( hómoion -) associations with their original names [ 25 ]; potentially hurting ( iásthai ) practices like moxa or bloodletting were dropped and awful tasting drugs eliminated. The remains of this trimming process were – deliberately, with commercial purpose – presented in a seemingly rational, consistent, and systematic form that would please Western doctors and patients [ 26 – 29 ]. Due to this framing, the reception of TCM in the West was very positive; it triggered an extensive market, many institutions, studies, publications, etc. – on the level and within the blinkers of lógos -thinking. Nevertheless, the essence of Chinese diagnostics and practice, the assigning and matching of symptoms to categories, such as yin and yang , the five phases ( wu xing ) wood ( mu ), fire ( huo ), earth ( tu ), metal ( jin ), and water ( shui ), and the dynamics of their mutual conquest and overpowering, etc., may remain a mystery for lógos -driven Westerners. Yet, the riddle might be resolvable – with the aid of hómoion - and iásthai -thinking. The same picture may be found with so-called Ayurveda, which today is being exploited as a business model for costly wellness retreats, be it in Switzerland or Sri Lanka. Superficially, its marketable appearance may be pruned, conventionalised, studied, and promoted on a lógos -basis, but the core of the diagnostic and therapeutic process, the recognition and matching of the three doshas ( tridosha ) vata , pitta , and kapha with patients’ symptoms, food, drugs, environment, etc., as well as its mostly omitted purging and purification practices may remain an unresolved challenge – as long as hómoion- and iásthai- thinking are being further neglected and not integrated into a truly complementary medicine [ 30 ]. A similar pattern may apply to phytotherapy or even shamanism, whether in Europe, America, Mongolia, or Tibet [ 31 ]. Further Possible Applications Finally, the wide range of possible applications and the enlightening power of the three categories, even in philosophy and religion, may be briefly indicated. While the highest wisdom conventional philosophical, spiritual, esoteric, or mystic teachers may arrive at may be static doctrines of ( lógos -bound) identity thinking, such as “you are the world” or “illusion and truth are the same,” etc [ 32 , 33 ], the introduction of hómoion - and iásthai -thinking may bring in the dynamics of a reviving tension and a goal to strive for, including instructions for its approachment. And this is what healers and sufferers need, be it on the physical or mental plane. In the same vein, e.g., psychotherapy may be questioned as to whether or not it is stuck in mere analytical rationalisation, having possibly neglected dynamic practices such as psychodrama [ 34 ], family constellations [ 35 ], or even dynamic meditation [ 36 ]. And Roman Christianity may be challenged to reflect its overproportional concern for ( lógos -bound) dogmas and commandments at the cost of concrete pastoral care and subsisting piety [ 37 ] – while e.g., in Orthodox Christianity, great emphasis is laid on the dynamic practice of théosis (deification), i.e., the individual similarisation with God [ 38 , 39 ]. In that respect, the Bhagavat Gita would comprise the most balanced doctrine in terms of lógos -, hómoion -, and iásthai -thinking, in the form of the three ways to redemption ( moksha , mukti ): jnana -yoga, bhakti -yoga, and karma -yoga, i.e., by cognition, devotion, and sacrificial work [ 40 ]. To be sure, conventional modern medicine does also comprise techniques reminiscent of hómoion - or iásthai -thinking, e.g., vaccines and anti-allergy treatments. They are, however, completely transformed, absorbed, and controlled by lógos -thinking. In fact, modern lógos -medicine can be practiced without any knowledge of, or background in, history, philosophy, culture, religion, politics, etc. Insofar, doctors might feel safe when strictly adhering to its reductionist methodical framework, categorically denying anything that might not fit into the box, denouncing it as spiritualism, mysticism, esotericism, etc. Being constituted by more than one dimension only, for complementary medicine, such a shielding attitude is no option. The enduring challenge here may be to keep (1) insisting that “there are more things in heaven and earth… than are dreamt of in [reductionistic] philosophy” [ 41 ], while at the same time (2) maintaining the ambition to explore and prove these claims scientifically. If classical natural science in terms of isolated lógos -thinking does not suffice for this purpose, then its range and categories may need to be expanded – e.g., as suggested, by hómoion - and iásthai -thinking. By no means must reality be ignored or renounced. Reality, however, may prove to be three-dimensional. Conclusion To sum up, homoeopathy – as a pars-pro-toto sample for complementary medicine – appears to be a paragon of a well-balanced art of healing, exemplarily encompassing and integrating the whole range of dimensions, in terms of lógos -thinking, hómoion -thinking, and iásthai -thinking. By contrast, modern technological medicine seems to predominantly rely on isolated lógos -thinking. Within its frame of thinking, no provision is foreseen to take into account hómoion - or iásthai -relations. It should be clear that none of these dimensions can ever be translated, transformed, or reduced to any of the others. As a comparison, the three dimensions ( lógos , hómoion , iásthai ) may be thought of as a coordinate system with an x-, y-, and z-axis. As long as one is fixed to and moves on the x-axis only, no matter how precise or sophisticated, there is no chance to ever realise what is happening on the y- or z-axes. Analogously, life (and medical and philosophical practice) that is limited to the lógos -axis would necessarily remain one-dimensional. Only insofar as it also considers the hómoion -and iásthai -dimension would it become three-dimensional, opening up a totality otherwise hidden from perception and experience. This may also apply to other fields of modern civilisation, such as science, art, culture, politics, jurisdiction, or religion. The new categories that have so far been developed and introduced, may thus prove to be keys to a broader understanding of the multi-dimensionality and meaning of the world in which we live. Outlook This has been a condensed outline of the basic thoughts constituting a suggested new approach to life and philosophy. Without doubt, a myriad of questions and challenges may still arise. The unavoidable and predictable first reaction of the rational mind may always be – as has been discussed – to dismiss acceptance of any dimension that would be outside of its grasp. Given the sheer necessity to use lógos to communicate, the solution cannot be to abandon thinking and discussing forever, but to do so in a new and informed way, so to say “in the light of” other dimensions, such as hómoion and iásthai . It may make a crucial difference in which “light,” if any, one is reasoning. For example, Paracelsus (1493–1541) maintained to having acquired his insights “in the light of nature,” “in the light of grace,” and “in the light of the holy spirit” [ 42 ]. While he still used these notions as a kind of incantation to keep open the access to ineffable dimensions, the opposite would be to demote (and thus desecrate) them to the status of profane logical definitions. But this is exactly what needs to be avoided in order to properly understand the multidimensionality not only of homoeopathy and complementary medicine but also of life, medicine, and politics in general. Conflict of Interest Statement The author has no conflicts of interest to declare. Funding Sources No funding in any form was received for this research. Author Contributions Josef M. Schmidt is the sole author of this paper. Funding Statement No funding in any form was received for this research. References 1. Nietzsche F. Die Philosophie im tragischen Zeitalter der Griechen [1873], § 3. In: Colli G, Montinari M, eds. Friedrich Nietzsche. Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden. Bd. 1. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag; 1980. p. 813f. [ Google Scholar ] 2. Schmidt JM. A new paradigmatic framework for integrative medicine, and its implications for medicine and politics. Adv Integr Med. 2025;12(3):100526. [ Google Scholar ] 3. Schmidt JM. Die Homöopathie im Lichte ihrer antiken sozioökonomischen und geistesgeschichtlichen Wurzeln. Med Ges Gesch. 2023;41:65–90. [ Google Scholar ] 4. Schmidt JM. Logos-Rationalität und die vergessenen Dimensionen der Homöopathie. Allg Homöopathische Ztg. 2024;269(5):10–6. [ Google Scholar ] 5. Feyerabend P. Against method. Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books; 1975. [ Google Scholar ] 6. Hahnemann S. Organon der rationellen Heilkunde. Dresden: Arnold; 1810. [ Google Scholar ] 7. Schmidt JM. The three powerful traditions of thinking that constitute homeopathy. Homeopathy. 2024;113(3):176–85. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Seaford R. Money and the early Greek mind. Homer, philosophy, tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ] 9. Protagoras. Fragment B1. In: Diels H, Kranz W, eds. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und Deutsch. Bd. 2, 6. Aufl. Zürich, Hildesheim: Weidmann; 1985. p. 263. [ Google Scholar ] 10. Empedocles. Fragments B90 and B109. In: Diels H, Kranz W, eds. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und Deutsch. Bd. 1, 6. Aufl. Zürich, Hildesheim: Weidmann; 1985. p. 344, 351. [ Google Scholar ] 11. Davies M. The cypria. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenistic Studies. Trustees for Harvard University; 2019. p. 138–48. [ Google Scholar ] 12. Ecclesiastes. 12,11. In: Kittel R, Elliger K, Rudolph W, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; 1984. [ Google Scholar ] 13. Aristotle. Politikon A. 1257b10f. In: Ross WD, editor. Aristotelis Politica. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1957. p. 16. [ Google Scholar ] 14. Müller RW. Geld und Geist. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Identitätsbewußtsein und Rationalität seit der Antike. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus Verlag; 1981. [ Google Scholar ] 15. Türcke C. Mehr! Philosophie des Geldes. München: Beck; 2015. [ Google Scholar ] 16. Ferguson N. The ascent of money. A financial history of the world. London: Penguin Books; 2019. [ Google Scholar ] 17. Brodbeck KH. Die Herrschaft des Geldes. Geschichte und Systematik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; 2009. [ Google Scholar ] 18. Seaford R. The origins of philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India. A historical comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ] 19. Seaford R. Tragedy, ritual and money in Ancient Greece. Selected essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ] 20. Hahnemann S. Diätetisches Gespräch mit meinem Bruder, vorzüglich über den Mageninstinkt. In: Freund der Gesundheit [1792]. Bd. 1, H. 1, p. 62–77. In: Schmidt JM, Kaiser D, eds. Samuel Hahnemann. Gesammelte kleine Schriften. Heidelberg: Haug; 2001. p. 137–42. [ Google Scholar ] 21. Clauberg J. Logica vetus et nova. Amsterdam: Officina Elzeviriana. 1658, pars 4, cap 14, § 134. p. 441. [ Google Scholar ] 22. Schmidt JM. Homoeopathy during one hundred years of LMHI (1925–2025) – part 1: philosophical perspectives. Indian J Res Homoeopathy. 2025;19(4):461–7. [ Google Scholar ] 23. Schmidt JM. Challenges to homeopathy in view of the framing of modern medicine – towards a proper understanding of “homeo-patho-logy”. Homeopathy. 2026;115. [ Google Scholar ] 24. Unschuld PU. Medizin in China. Eine Ideengeschichte. München: Beck; 1980. [ Google Scholar ] 25. Schmidt JM. Die klassischen Akupunkturpunkte. Geschichte und Synopsis ihrer deutschen Übersetzungen von 1954 bis 1988. Uelzen: Medizinisch Literarische Verlagsgesellschaft; 1990. [ Google Scholar ] 26. The Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine . An outline of chinese acupuncture. Peking: Foreign Language Press; 1975. [ Google Scholar ] 27. Porkert M. Die theoretischen Grundlagen der chinesischen Medizin. Das Entsprechungssystem. Wiesbaden: Steiner; 1973. [ Google Scholar ] 28. Porkert M, Hempen CH. Systemetische Akupunktur. München, Wien, Baltimore: Urban and Schwarzenberg; 1985. [ Google Scholar ] 29. Schnorrenberger CC. Lehrbuch der chinesischen Medizin für westliche Ärzte. Die theoretischen Grundlagen der chinesichen Akupunktur und Arzneiverordnung. Stuttgart: Hippokrates; 1979. [ Google Scholar ] 30. Sena S. Ayurveda-Lehrbuch. Kompendium des Ayurveda-Klassikers Caraka-Saṃhitā. 2 Vol. Kränzlin: Vasati; 2015. [ Google Scholar ] 31. Kingsley P. A story waiting to pierce you: Mongolia, Tibet and the destiny of the Western world. London: Catafalque Press; 2025. [ Google Scholar ] 32. Krishnamurti J. You are the world. Authentic reports of talks and discussions in American universities. New York, San Francisco, London: Harper and Row; 1972. [ Google Scholar ] 33. Kingsley P. Reality. Amerang: Crotona; 2012. [ Google Scholar ] 34. Moreno JL. Gruppenpsychotherapie und Psychodrama. Stuttgart: Thieme Verlag; 1959. [ Google Scholar ] 35. Hellinger B. Ordnungen des Helfens. Ein Schulungsbuch. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer; 2003. [ Google Scholar ] 36. Rajneesh B. Meditation. Die Kunst, zu sich selbst zu finden. München: Heyne; 1979. [ Google Scholar ] 37. Kempen T. Von der Nachfolge Christi. Ditzingen: Reclam; 2022. [ Google Scholar ] 38. Vlachos H. Orthodox spirituality. A brief introduction. Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery; 1994. [ Google Scholar ] 39. Miller D. The ascetical homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Boston: The Holy Transfiguration Monastery; 1984. [ Google Scholar ] 40. Radhakrishnan S. Die Bhagavadgita. Baden-Baden: Holle; 1958. [ Google Scholar ] 41. Shakespeare W. The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark. Act 1, Sc. 5, line 166 f. In: Craig WJ, editor. The complete works of Shakespeare. London: Oxford University Press; 1930. p. 1016. [ Google Scholar ] 42. Braun L. Paracelsus. Alchimist, Chemiker und Erneuerer der Heilkunde. München: Heyne; 1993. [ Google Scholar ] Articles from Complementary Medicine Research are provided here courtesy of Karger Publishers ACTIONS View on publisher site Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top