Samuel Hahnemann, a brilliant German medical doctor and chemist, developed the science of homeopathy at the end of the 18th century. He was responding, in part, to his concern that more people were dying from medical treatments than from their diseases. Hahnemann believed that the purpose of medical therapy should be to restore health quickly, gently and permanently in the least harmful manner without toxic side-affects or the suppression of symptoms which would only return. His work and principles have been carried on and developed by many dedicated homeopaths right to the present day. Homeopathy now rests on the firm foundation of Hahnemann's work and some 200 years of well-documented, successful healing experience.
Hahnemann's guiding principles still apply today in the practice of classical homeopathy, but his criteria are otherwise rarely met despite all the improvements and advances in so-called modern medicine.The True Classical Homeopathic Approach to CureFundamental to classical homeopathy is the view that we are each a synergistic whole, every part of our wholistic being effecting every other part. It is the combination of all symptoms and how they are experienced by the individual which should be addressed in attempting to cure that person and their disorders. When someone has a health problem, it is the whole person that has the problem. The problem does not exist in isolation from the person. They can't simply put the problem in a box and forget it. Therefore, when attempting to cure that person it is the whole person that should be considered, not simply what is thought to be a disordered part of the person.
This is the wholistic approach of classical homeopathy. This is in contrast to the conventional approach to disease which often oversimplifies it as one isolated symptom or group of symptoms, as a problem affecting only one part or aspect of the body and person. The "sloppy approach" to homeopathy is guilty of the same practice. Classical Homeopathy, by contrast, prescribes remedies on a constitutional basis, treating the entire individual, their symptoms and modalities. To arrive at the correctly chosen remedy for a chronic disorder, the detailed case of all aspects of the individual must be taken. The true classical homeopath delves into the broad collection of symptoms and peculiarities of the individual, their entire mental, emotional and physical make-up.
This requires an in-depth sense of the patient, a keen sensitivity to them which is able to grasp their gestalt, that totality of the person and the matching remedies which transcends the mere sum of their parts.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
What is justice? In Plato’s, The Republic this is the main point and the whole novel is centered around this question. We see in this novel that Socrates talks about what is justice with multiple characters.In the first part of Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates questions conventional morality and attempts to define justice as a way for the just man to harm the unjust man (335d) ; however, Thrasymachus fully rejects this claim, and remarks that man will only do what is in his best interest, since human nature is, and should be ruled by self-interest, and he furthers this argument by implying that morality, and thus justice, is not what Socrates had suggested, but rather that it is simply a code of behavior exacted on man by his ruler. Thrasymachus begins his argument by giving his definition of justice. He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
For argument 1, the premises do follow and support their conclusion. However, what I believe the weaknesses in this argument are is the fallacy of false dilemma, and the subjectivity of the claim itself. In the debate between homeopathy and scientific medicine, it is often you are given with two choices. These choices being A) it works or B) it does not. In the field of science I believe this to be true as well. In lecture we spoke about the fallacy of false dilemma being the offering of only two choices and not having any alternative. Why I believe this first argument exemplifies this is because while the aim of homeopathy is to work in conjunction with scientific medicine, the premise “It works for some people and not for others” does not provide an alternative. There is also the weight placed on personal experience, which was covered in Chapter 5. It is not as if personal experience is wrong (like we have covered), but more so that the reliability of personal experience might not be the best example to use in this case. It is similar to possibility as well. A rational thinker knows that this person’s claim is possible, but is it as possible as the chance of rain on an overcast day, or the sun not rising in the
The star text of a celebrity can help to decipher their image and transitions they may undergo. In order to better understand these transitions, one must know the definition of a star text. A star text is the sum of everything we affiliate with celebrities, which includes their body of work, promotion, publicity, and audience participation (Jackson, 08/09/16). One must note that “celebrity doesn 't happen because someone has extraordinary qualities – it is discursively constructed by the way in which the person is publicised and meanings about them circulate” (O 'Shaughnessy and Stadler 424). Destiny Hope Cyrus, “an American singer and actress, became a sensation in the television series
Book 1 of Plato's Republic raises the question what is justice? Four views of justice are examined. The first is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one's debt. The second is that justice is helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. The third view of justice is that it is to the advantage of the stronger. The last view is that injustice is more profitable than justice.
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.
If one to were to take a look at an image of Miley Cyrus ten years ago, one in the present, and one in the future they would not believe she is the same person. On March 26th, 2006, the live-action comedy show, Hannah Montana was launched on Disney Channel with Miley Cyrus playing her first major role as the show’s protagonist, conveniently named Hannah Montana. The television show showcased a 13 year old teenager’s everyday misadventures as living a double life as Miley Stewart and Hannah Montana. The show instantly became a fan favorite, permanently staining Miley Cyrus’ public image as Hannah Montana. At this point, Miley was young, she was innocent, had meaning, and was living the life of an interesting
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
Miley Cyrus has been a household name since the success of her hit show Hannah Montana. Long gone is the thirteen-year old girl who played America’s sweetheart on Disney Channel. Today the media portrays her as an out of control twenty-two year old superstar. The recent confrontation on the 2015 Video Music Awards with Nicki Minaj is a prime example of how Hannah Montana has turned herself into a thing of the past. The transformation from Hannah Montana to Miley Cyrus has caused her to change her appearance, morals, and music.
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.
There is a central notion that there seems to be a mysterious curse surrounding child stars. These young celebrities are often described as having ‘too much too young’ or being ‘scarred for life’ by success (WLVDialogue, 2009). According to Dr. Jane O’Connor (2009), an expert in child stars at the University of Wolverhampton’s School of Education, child stars lack the routine that most children usually benefit from. They often struggle to have a childhood due to the high demands of the show business lifestyle. This strengthens the idea that childhood is a private space for the development of a person’s identity and personality. Childhood is a special time that comes only once and if you miss it, there can be problematic repercussions manifested in the adult identity. Children put together from what they see and hear eve...
As children, the majority of us enjoy good health and the ability to bounce back quickly from minor illnesses and the inevitable bumps, falls and scrapes of childhood. As we get older, many of us face issues prevalent in our society such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and high blood sugar. These and many other diagnoses typically lead to prescribed medications that have unwanted side effects ranging from annoying to potentially dangerous. Although medical doctors often advise lifestyle changes such as increased exercise and perhaps might refer patients to a dietitian for nutritional advice, there is a heavy dependence on these drugs as the primary method of care. A more holistic approach, one where we consider the whole person and seek to improve health while minimizing the use of prescription drugs, would be beneficial to many people.