Aphorism 36:
The Shield of the Stronger: Understanding Nature’s Law of Repulsion in Aphorism 36
In his quest to prove the “homoeopathic therapeutic law of nature,” Samuel Hahnemann began by observing what happens when things go wrong—specifically, when two dissimilar diseases meet in the same person. Aphorism 36 details the first of three possible scenarios: the law of repulsion.
The Core Principle: Older vs. Newer
Hahnemann establishes a clear hierarchy of dynamic strength within the human organism. He asserts that if an older disease already existing in the body is equally as strong as, or stronger than, a new dissimilar disease trying to enter, the new one will be repelled. In this case, the pre-existing malady acts as a defensive shield, refusing to let the new “morbific agent” affect the patient.
Evidence from the Natural World
To support this claim, Hahnemann provides several striking examples from the medical observations of his time:
- Epidemics: A patient already suffering from a severe chronic disease is generally immune to moderate autumnal dysentery or other common epidemic diseases.
- The Plague: Historical accounts suggest that the Plague of the Levant does not break out in areas where scurvy is already prevalent.
- Skin Conditions: Individuals suffering from eczema have been observed to be resistant to infection by the plague.
- Vaccination: Jenner noted that the presence of rachitis (rickets) can actually prevent a vaccination from “taking effect” in a child.
- Consumption: Those suffering from pulmonary phthisis (consumption) are typically not attacked by epidemic fevers, provided the fevers are not of an extremely violent character.
The Allopathic Parallel
Hahnemann uses this natural phenomenon to explain a common failure in medical practice. He argues that under ordinary allopathic treatment, an old chronic disease remains uncured and unaltered if the medicines used are incapable of producing a state of health similar to the disease.
Because the “medicinal disease” created by allopathic drugs is dissimilar to the patient’s natural suffering, the body simply repels the medicinal influence, or the existing disease keeps it at bay. As a result, the patient may undergo treatment for years without seeing any real change in their condition, often only suffering further from the debilitating effects of the drugs themselves.
Conclusion: Why Dissimilarity Fails
Aphorism 36 reminds us that nature does not cure by accident or through random conflict. If a new disease is dissimilar to the old one, they cannot “neutralize” each other. Instead, the stronger simply holds its ground, leaving the patient “just as they were”. This observation serves as the first major proof that similarity—not just strength—is the indispensable requirement for a true and permanent cure.
