Greta wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:02 am
It's complicated and impractical. Thus people find it boring and irrelevant, fussing about things that can safely be taken for granted.
However, their innocent bravado is exposed when they are lying on the deathbeds, and then suddenly those boring and irrelevant existential and moral philosophical notions become incredibly interesting and important.
A lot of truth in this statement. Right now I am dead center in dealing with my aunt and godmother having stage four cancer. I help with my cousin, and aunt (who suffers from mental illness) and my uncle (husband of my godmother who has 8 percent heart valve function), my father (who has congestive heart failure) and my mother (who just recently had a hip replacement).
Because of the nature of the situation it mostly lies on me and my cousin and we have to reason through a large number of practical, ethical and mental-spiritual problems and often times have been reduced to talking not just about philosophy (and the philosophers various viewpoints) but having to deal with the nature of reason itself considering the multitutude of choices having to be made.
We have to deal with the moral and practical situation of having to provide comfort and compassion and the vest means to do so.
Abstract situations over the nature of the problem (ie, the cancer is stage four but was never picked up on tests, shows barely any metastization, liver has shown a good level of function regardless of the cancer....leading to various questions on the relation between mental and physical health).
Group politics as members of family broke into three factions:
1. Those who are trying to keep her around forever regardless of her comfort level and the comfort level of those around her.
2. Those who want her to quickly pass regardless of her health or comfort.
3. Those who look at the situation objectively and realize her psychological, spiritual and physical health needed to be treated in such a manner that she is comfortable and at peace as much as objectively possible....and whatever happens "happens" regardless of personal desire with the desires of the patient coming first regardless of the influence of outside influence while keep outside variable in mind due to others physical and mental health problems.
Ethical and practical problems of:
1. Potential medicine being slipped to induce a form of with euthanasia.
2. Oxygen machine being turned off or sabotaged/tampered with on multiple occasions to induce euthanasia.
3. The wording of individuals to induce a positive or negative state within the patient.
4. The ethical and practical problems of the patients life or death directly affecting members of the family in such a manner they can literally live or die based upon their emotional attachment and current physical or mental health problems.
5. Doctors providing wrong diagnoses (calling patient up to hospital only to send her back over their perceived error. Doctors prescribing either medications she is allergic too or potentially may overdose the patient and kill her)
6. The moral question of euthanasia itself.
7. The nature of spirituality and after life in regards to not just providing comfort to the patient but by giving a general reference framework over the inherent moral and practical questions.
8. How to maintain a balance of compassion of objective ruthlessness in the behavior of surrounding family members and applying this dualism to maintain a sense of balance and structure within not just the patient but the social or familial environment in which the person exists.
9. The nature of language as "giving life or death" and the appropriate means in which to word things.
10. Personal and subjective means to maintain personal balance through the situation.
11. Personal grievances between members of the family, along with loyalties and friendships.
12. The nature of reason and prayer.
And a whole host of other questions and situations which must be dealt with empirically or abstractly through finding the appropriate means of measuring the situation and effectively "directing its movements" in such a way to maintain structure to the chaos through proportion and balance.
It is not uncommon, for me and my cousin to not just discuss and work on these issues but discuss prior philosophers and there work, dually with religious faith, to gain a better perspective.
For example in discussing the "oneness" of Parmenides we came to a fuller perspective of how all our decisions are based around the interconnectedness of the environment where one action towards one member reverberates to another member as everyone, both patient and friends/family/hospice/etc. are interconnected and all decisions have a "mirror effect" which affect other members. Treating one member one way effectively determines how that member will treat the patient along with the health of the patient affecting the health of family members and potentially causing their life or death as well.
Observing the multiplicity of anaximander we observe a dual dimension of individualistic personal accountability of the members in a different respect as we are all individual parts of the sitatution.
Nichomean ethics as observing the appropriate route of correct and moral behavior is a question of balance.
Kierkegaard in response to optimism as a driving factor and the importance and dignity of the human individual.
Nietzsche as the will to power where pure will alone must be exerted for survival.
Pythagoras as establishing everything is mathematical and logical and exists through ratios.
Eastern objective philosophy where everything can be viewed as the direction of movements reflected in the Dao Te ching.
The bagavadghita as expressing the necessity of discipline and loyalty, through personal detachment, relative to the situation of death.
Christianity and the need for mercy along with necessity of a savior due to human weakness.
And this is just a short version....however one cannot argue against the necessity of philosophy relative to the various extremes life presents.