top of page
Sacred Earth - OintmentS & Horseradish Paste.png
Alexandria Bagot
May 1, 20237 min read

VITALIST AND ATOMIST APPROACHES TO HEALING ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

“The thinking of the Vitalist as opposed to the thinking of the Atomist profoundly influences how the healer might approach healing on a physical and on a spiritual level”.


Vitalist and Atomist approaches to healing are very different and these differences do impact on the approach to healing on the physical and spiritual level. The vitalists way of thinking is healing the patient as a whole on a spiritual level taking into account the mind and body. The atomists approach is more on the physical level where they see that it is only the body that needs to be interfered with to cure an individual. Looking further into the vilalists and the atomists approach to healing, one can begin to understand and see how their different ways of thinking influence people now and in the past.


“According to Aristotle, Democritus regarded the soul as composed of one kind of atom, in particular fire atoms.”1 In my opinion this extract from the first weeks module of Berryman S. (2004) provides a good basis for understanding how an atomist thinks. Democritus suggests that the human body is all there is and the idea of essence or spirit is the outcome of the body’s motions. My impression is his philosophy pays no attention to the environment surrounding the body, be it spiritual or physical. In turn the philosophy of atomism has given rise to the principles we now know as conventional medicine or modern medicine. The thinking of an atomist can be seen through a number of conventional practitioners and with those who had made discovers linked with conventional methods. Louis Pasteur is one of these as he created vaccines, pasteurization and the germ theory along with other discoveries. In the article Science History Museum in the paragraph on Germ Theory and A Great Experimenter and Innovative Theory they state that Pasteur believed that disease was the result of the body being weak and that the only way to treat the disease was through intervening with vaccines.2 Within this there is no reference to the spiritual side of a human being but instead viewing a person as a piece of machinery needing to be fixed. It focus on effects without considering the possible causes which may lie outside of the body in the environment, physical and/or spiritual.


I particularly found one of my classmates comments, Jacqueline Clancy, showed best the thinking of a conventional medicines approach. “Doctors can look at the parts/matter and determine where/what disease is and the hereditary genetics the predict it, but they cannot account for the invisible force that caused the disease or heals it using genetic theory.”3 From Jacqueline’s comment it reveals how there is more of an understanding on looking at the healing on the physical level in conventional medicine where they address the disease itself manifesting in the body. Although this does provide a grounded approach in treating people it could potentially cause problems between the physician and the patient. This is because of how the patient may feel they are not being heard or approached as a person with a soul and simply another mechanical device needing to be fixed.


The limitations of the atomist approach has been recognised by several scientists and philosophers who have then opened their minds and widen their viewpoints to acknowledge another method of approach to healing known as vitalism.


Vitalism is a principle that predates the ancient Greeks. It considers the essence of life, vital energy, as reality. It is very much on a spiritual level which leads to the belief of treating a living creature as a whole. This method of healing can be seen in varying ancient spiritual practices and cultures such as traditional herbal medicine which believes in the use of mother earth’s own energy through the plants to heal people. There is also the shamans who, as Rupert Sheldrake portrayed them, use their connections with the animal world to become rooted with the vital force, Nature.4 The method of treating someone holistically involves considering both the persons mind and body. As what my classmate Diana Ascena mentioned in the first discussion “Without Life Force (energy) our bodies (cells) would be just homogenous matter. Life Force infuses the cells with the abilities to increase, divide, form, organize and so on...to create our human body with all its functions.”5 In Diana’s comment she explains this further by showing that if our bodies did not have the vital force we would be identical pieces of matter. Vital force has an important role and Diana explains that we cannot live without it. It is an alternative approach to healing which has given room for healers to interpret this and built up on the idea of treating holistically. Some of these scientist and philosophers are Professor Arnold Ehret and Dr. Edward Bach. Professor Ehret held the belief that to heal the body one needed to go through a cleansing process where your systems could be rid of toxic waste. Dr. Bach on the other hand believed that illness was the result of disharmony between the mind and body.


In Professor Ehret’ book Mucusless Diet Healing System he discusses his belief that when we are sick it is Nature’s way of helping us remove the toxins in our body. “Disease is an effort of the body to eliminate waste…”6 “…Nature’s process of healing-cleansing.”7 Ehret’s approach first comes across as one on the physical level as he looks at how to purge the body of ‘waste’ but Ehret does acknowledges that vital force is necessary to curing a person. He shows this through his formula of life “V” = “P” - “O”8. Where he discusses that the obstruction, “O”, takes away the driving force of human body or the power, “P”, which then in turn reduces one’s vital energy, “V”. Looking at his formula of life then at the previous quotations it makes sense why Ehret’s focuses on unblocking our systems. He reveals through his book that the blockages in our systems, if not treated, effects our energy or spirit causing further disharmony between the body and mind. This, in turn makes it difficult for the individual to fully recover.


This was also what Dr. Bach believed except he took on a more spiritual approach to the healing process looking into a person’s emotions. In his teachings he explains that when an individual’s emotional state holds them in a negative space it gives room for illness to come through.9 His approach to handling this was to create a mix of specialised flower essences each one helping the person confront their varying emotions. Examples are mimulus which help an individual cope with a known fear10 and cherry plum which helps those who feel the specific fear of loss of self-control and hysteria11. Dr. Bach’s approach embraces the principles and the thinking process of a vitalist. He believed in the essence of a living being and used that belief to come up with a way to heal them. His methods of treating have influenced many people to go on a path to heal themselves and bring their emotions back into balance and, in turn, their bodies.


Through looking into thinking of a vitalist and atomists approach we can see how these very different approaches have profoundly influenced healers. From Dr. Bach focusing mostly on a spirit and an individual’s emotions to Louis Pasteur viewing the human body as a mechanical device unable to rid itself of disease on its own. Both approaches have their own unique ideas of how to treat someone and through their defined perceptions it allows the healer to make their own interpretations on how to heal a person. As my classmate, Susanne Hassler, mentioned in discussion three “I guess a conjunction of both of them within the right lines would be a great starting point.”12 I agree with her. At the end of day it comes down to what the modern healer chooses to believe and what they decide to do with the knowledge they have. There are bits from both the vitalist, natural, approach and the atomist, conventional, approach which a healer can take from to ensure a successful approach to the treatment of their patients.



Reference and Bibliography


Berryman S. Week 1: The Principles of Natural Healing. Philosophies of healing. 1.2.1. Atomist Vs. Vitalist. Available at:


Science History Institute. Louis Pasteur. Available at:


Clancy J. 'The work of new scientists like Bruce Lipton represents the beginning of a return to first vitalist principles in medicine'. Post your comments and discuss your responses to this statement. You may wish to watch the videos of Bruce Lipton to further appreciate his approach. Blog. 26/09/18. Available at:


The Relationship Between Humans and Animals. Podcast. Available at:


Ascena D. Please post your comments about the reading of J.M. Thurston. Did you find his language obscure? Do you understand the approach of physiomedicalism as he describes it? 26/09/18. Available at:


Professor Ehret’s A. Mucusless Diet Healing System. Twenty-Second ed. U.S.A: Ehret Literature Publishing Co., Inc.; 1994. P. 26.


Professor Ehret’s A. Mucusless Diet Healing System. Twenty-Second ed. U.S.A: Ehret Literature Publishing Co., Inc.; 1994. P. 39.


Professor Ehret’s A. Mucusless Diet Healing System. Twenty-Second ed. U.S.A: Ehret Literature Publishing Co., Inc.; 1994. P. 53.


Dr. Bach E. The 38 Bach Flower Essences. Fourth ed. Great Britain: Wigmore Publications Ltd; 2014. P. 10.


Dr. Bach E. The 38 Bach Flower Essences. Fourth ed. Great Britain: Wigmore Publications Ltd; 2014. P. 21.


Dr. Bach E. The 38 Bach Flower Essences. Fourth ed. Great Britain: Wigmore Publications Ltd; 2014. P. 35.


Hassler S. What exactly do you think Bechamp meant by the term 'terrain' ? How might this apply in real life health situations ? On the appropriate discussion forum please share your thoughts about Pasteur and Bechamp. 26/09/18. Available at:








6 views0 comments

コメント

bottom of page