Robert’s Philosophy Chapter 20 Temperaments– Explanation, Notes, Easy to Understand

In this chapter, Roberts discusses the role of temperaments in homœopathic practice, especially in case-taking and remedy selection. Traditionally, there are four main temperaments: nervous, bilious, sanguinous, and phlegmatic, with most individuals showing a mixture but one type often dominating. Temperaments are partly physiological, reflected in a person’s build, skin color, circulation, respiration, and elimination patterns, but they also include mental and emotional traits. Though fixed early in development, possibly from conception, and not fundamentally changeable by remedies, homœopathy can modify or guide their expression—especially in children—so that their negative tendencies don’t manifest into disease.

Temperament is important because it often determines how symptoms present themselves. For example, a phlegmatic person tends to have sluggish reactions and venous stasis; a nervous type reacts quickly and is sensitive; a bilious type may show liver disorders. These tendencies may help guide remedy selection because certain temperaments are more likely to produce certain remedy pictures. For instance, Pulsatilla often shows strongly in fair-skinned, blue-eyed women who are emotionally sensitive, and Nux vomica proves well in wiry, dark-complexioned men. But Roberts warns that this is not a rule—temperament may influence how symptoms appear, but should not override the totality of symptoms when prescribing.

He strongly criticizes type-based prescribing, such as assuming that all blondes need Pulsatilla or that dark, wiry men always require Nux vomica. This “snap judgment” method often leads to mistakes. The remedy must match the full symptom picture, not just the external appearance or temperament. A patient may not match the usual “type” of a remedy and still require it. In fact, when a remedy works well in someone outside the typical prover profile, it may be a stronger indication for its use.

Roberts further explains that individuals show heightened susceptibility to remedies when in a diseased state, due to a disturbance of internal balance. In a healthy state, they may not respond at all. Therefore, even though some temperaments react more vividly to certain remedies in provings, all remedies can act on all types when the symptom picture fits. For instance, Phosphorus showed tubercular symptoms in thin, narrow-chested individuals, and vascular symptoms in florid, fuller types—but it can still cure either, depending on the case.

He uses case examples to show that modalities and mental/emotional symptoms are more valuable than physical features. For example, if a person feels better in fresh air and worse in a stuffy room, this is more important for prescribing Pulsatilla than hair or eye color. Emotional traits, such as how a person reacts to consolation or anger, provide deeper insight. In one hay fever case, the emotional response helped differentiate between Nux vomica and Pulsatilla, leading to a successful prescription.

Finally, Roberts reminds us that temperament should never overshadow the real basis of homœopathic prescribing: the totality of morbific symptoms—the full picture of mental, emotional, and physical deviations from health. By matching this totality to the simillimum (the most similar remedy), we can remove disease tendencies without trying to change the patient’s core temperament or personality. In summary, temperaments may give clues, but the individual symptom expression and modalities must guide us to the true remedy.