Final words on Feminism

After doing my book report and being able to discuss feminist philosophy in class, I wanted to make a final point on my views in respect to that. I have had the time to see the philosophy from many perspectives: from non- feminists, radical feminists and equality feminists. I believe there is no feminist philosophy; however, I do believe there is a way to look at things from a feminist point of view when the matter is philosophical. I personally identify as an equality feminist; I believe in women's rights and changing the world for women. However, I also believe in delivering that equality to other repressed groups and people who suffer. I think from that alone I look at certain issues with that lens. However, I do not believe that there is a purely feminist way to look at things. If so, there would be issues that would be hard to recover and analyse depending on what kind of feminist you are.

I am proud to say I am a feminist who believes in looking at philosophical issues pertaining to others in a open minded sense. If you become closed minded and too narrow I believe you lack the ability to truly understand many things. After reading that book on different feminists, I believe that there are issues philosophically that I would take a feminist perspective on, like issues dealing with reproduction, health and personal rights; however, I do not think that there is a sole feminist philosophical perspective for everything.

Mental illness in literatrure

If any form of expression has a way of presenting the raw truth about mental illness it is literature. I know we spent a good amount of time in class talking about mental illnesses from a philosophical and scientific perspective; however, as an English Major with a Literature concentration, when I have come across the discussion and representation of mental illnesses it has been through books.

Some of my favorite books have been memoirs about the writer's mental illness, their battle with it and more often their hospitalization. For example, one of the books I really enjoyed is Prozac Nation by Elizabeth Wurtzel, who details her life as a manic depressive student at Harvard University. She has an interesting approach to describing her illness; she refers to it as a "black wave" that covers her. However it is all very honest and blunt truth. Another writer who talks about living with borderline personality disorder in a more abstract manner is Susanna Kaysen, the writer of Girl Interrupted. All of the methods she uses to talk about her illness are metaphors like, "swallowing a dark secret". I found her description of her illness to be rather emotional and philosophical in the sense that throughout the book she analysizes her illness and other patients in a manner that relates it to the self as a whole.

I think literature is another major source to understand mental illnesses.

You are what you Suffer from?

" I would rather have anything wrong with my body than something wrong with my head, but the idea seemed so involved and wearisome that I didn't say anything. I only burrowed down further in the bed.” - Sylvia Plath


People with mental illnesses often feel, when they are told by their doctors or psychiatrists that they have an illness, that they become their illness. The name for mental illnesses like depression or bi-polar disorder often become labels and burdens to those who suffer from the illnesses. However, their illness does not define them and it is not fair to assume that their illness is all that they are as a person. There are many people who go all throughout their life suffering from a mental illness and not even know that they have it, and they go on and live relatively normal lives. However, when they are finally diagnosed with their illness, they believe that their illness is now who they are. Actually, it is known that when a person is reinforced with their illness as a label it only decreases their chances of recovering or finding healthy ways to combat it. For example, people with depression try to find healthy ways to cope with their illness. However, once they are told they are depressed it is harder for them to ignore the label of the illness and get better. I believe that there should not be a reinforcement of the title or name of the illness once a person is diagnosed because it does not do the individual any better to know, rather it often hinders them. Yes, they should be aware of their illness if it is one that debilitates their everyday lives; however, that should not be overly reinforced.

Labels from Society

Society often creates bad connotations of mental illnesses or believes that everyone who suffers from a mental illness fits under one stereotype pertaining to that illness. It seems as though many people often believe that if you suffer from bi-polar, you are very unstable and moody and not someone who can function in society properly. However, contrary to popular belief, there are many who suffer from bi-polar that live relatively normal lives.
It seems as though society adopts stereotypes for individuals with mental illness that make them seem widely unstable and people who cannot function. That is to say, there are some people who suffer from an extreme form of their illness and cannot function properly in society; however, they are not the majority of those who suffer from illnesses. It is not correct to place a bad connotation onto those who suffer from mental illnesses; it is not something they chose to have. Much of it is due to mental and chemical imbalances in the brain. There should be an elimination of bad connotations placed onto any mental illness, because if we want to help another human who may suffer from an illness we must get rid of wrongly preconceived notions about their illness, so as not to hinder their recovery or hinder any chances of them living with the disorder peacefully.

What it is like to be a Woman

"If you want to know what it is like to be a woman, ask one."

This notion is almost amusing to me. Many assume that women are what gender roles describe them to be. This is to say that, typically, women are emotional, irrational, motherly and sexually reserved. This "outline" of women is a social construct; not every women fits those terms. Some women may fit none of those terms. In today's society it means many different things to be a woman. Even though the fight for women's equality is not done it is certainly at a different place than before. Now, women do not have to fit those certain roles or behaviors. Now, women do not have to be sexually reserved or motherly. Some women choose to have no motherly responses and others choose to expound upon their sexuality.

To know what it is like to be a woman cannot be determined by society, it is determined by women themselves. So I agree that if you want to know what it is like to be a woman, you should ask one, instead of assume the truth of a gender role that is far too dated.

Emotions and Gender

 Is one gender inherently more irrational and or emotional than another?

 When discussing the sexes it often comes up that one gender is more irrational than the other, and that irrationality usually comes from one gender portraying emotions more openly than the other. Typically this more irrational gender is women. However, is it fair to say that women are inherently more irrational than men or any other gender? It is known that women are more likely to cry when they are upset or if they are angry. This emotional reaction may be due to brain chemistry or how the emotion is handled. However, the fact that crying or showing emotions is something women are known to do, or that it is known as a feminine trait, is something constructed by societal gender roles. In this society, it is okay if women cry; however, if men show emotions or cry openly they are not seen as emotional - they are seen as effeminate. Whether the emotional reaction has to do with their brain chemistry or not is often left out or not regarded. This theory is skewed because it is very obvious that emotions and gender are not linked in the sense that one controls the other.

So is one gender more irrational or emotional than the other? Perhaps the reasons behind the emotions are due to the different combinations of  brain chemistry. However, much of the belief  regarding irrationality and emotions is constructed by society as a way to demand compliance with gender roles. I do not believe that one gender is more irrational or emotional than the other - I believe that is a societal perception of the genders.

Response to Skyla's post

Her response post is here http://skylasreality.blogspot.com/2012/11/post-2.html

In Skyla's blog post she commented on my idea of people who advocate for issues without being critical thinkers. I used the example of the LGBTQ community and she took it in another direction, one which I did not originally consider. Skyla considered this concept with people and politics. She used the example of her being raised in a democratic household and then having both political parties to her. She uses the idea of people who vote without knowing the issues; this is something I had not originally considered. However, it is very true that we cannot accurately take part in the voting process or in politics if we do not critically think. The issues which we are voting on and for are ones that we need to be able to understand in full and think about without a party bias. 

Considering this, I think it is important to realize that we must critically think if we truly want to make a difference and not vote just to say we voted. Today the stakes in politics become higher and higher, and as voters and citizens, if we choose to take part in this process we need to be critical thinkers. I believe firmly that we cannot ignore being a critical thinker if we want to fight for issues that matter or vote or advocate for different things.

Response to Avery's Post

His post is here http://asfcr2012f.blogspot.com/2012/11/positive-isms.html

Avery's post in response to my one from last week was another interesting idea that I had not initially thought of when discussing the idea of ending negative isms. Avery brought up the fact that by eliminating these negative isms, we also get rid of positive isms like feminism, which depending in your opinion is considered a positive ism.  However, these isms arrive because of negative ones. For example, feminism arrived in response to sexism. There begins the cycle of eliminating negative and positive isms.

It would interesting if eliminating isms in general happened, because I believe it would be better if we got rid of isms all together; that way there are no negative or positive connotations to one party. That way everyone can remain equal in all senses. After reading Avery's response I was able to consider that idea. I had not initially thought of it as an elimination of both sides of the ism spectrum. I think perhaps that is the resolution to the problem of isms that are created by a lack of critical thinking. If we did think critically we could do away with all forms of isms because we would be able to look at people and groups of individuals without a basis or without a preconceived judgement.

Advocating without Understanding

Can we fully advocate for a certain social group if we cannot critically think about the issue?

Once again, if we look at what it means to critically think then we understand it means to think logically, analytically, and without prejudice. Also, we know that not everyone is a critical thinker and there are some who never will critically think.

So, can we as people advocate for a certain social group, like the LGBTQA community, if we do not critically think about the issue? To me, that does not make a lot of sense. For us to consider the rights of another group then we must be able to think critically, thereby leaving all prejudgments, religious beliefs, and other personal feelings aside. However, not everyone is able to do that, and not everyone involved with these groups can do so. To consider and understand the issues of these parties we must know enough details well enough to analyse them and offer help to them without other matters getting in the way.

So no, I do not believe that we can fully advocate for a social group if we are not critical thinkers ourselves.

To End All Isms

If everyone was a critical thinker, would we still have isms?

It occurred to me that being a critical thinker means to be someone who thinks of things clearly, analytically and without allowing personal beliefs to skew one's thoughts. If that is true, then if we could all be critical thinkers it would be possible to no longer have negative isms. Now, to make it clearer, negative isms are a way to belittle a group of people - for example, racism, sexism, heterosexism and so on. These terms are used against a group of people to lessen them as individuals.

With that in mind, it is not fair to say that everyone is a critical thinker, but if everyone became a critical thinker they would be more able to identify and analyze the differences between themselves and others without a stigma based on past beliefs or religious affiliation affecting their point of view. Critical thinkers would be more able to see another from a logical point of view. For instance, a critical thinker would not use racism against an African American because their skin color will have nothing to do with understanding them as a person. Overall they would be able to evaluate different people without the stigmatizing them based on their ethnicity or orientation or gender identity. It would be a less hypercritical situation and more of a critical analysis of the person as a whole.

Free Will in Life

A week or so back we discussed Free Will and I found it to be something that still makes me think. I keep wondering how many things in my life, which I believe I do with free will, are really determined. For example, I have studied for every test I have taken since beginning school. Our discussion made me question whether I really had the choice to do that extra work or not. If so, why did I choose to do so? The idea that everything that we do is preconceived and predetermined makes me think that even considering free will is a bit ridiculous. I have found myself wondering why we ever thought in the first place that we had the free will to do school work, have a job, or function in society. It would seem as though free will is merely a social construct; it is something we believe we have when in actuality we do not.

It is also interesting to think of things like this from a deterministic point of view, which in this respect seems to make more sense. It would seem as though those feelings or preconceived actions are more easily understood as being something determined. Perhaps we as humans are determined to follow in the path of what we know we are obligated to do, what is right (right in the sense that passing in homework and studying is a good habit that we are conditioned to know to have positive results.)

I really enjoyed the conversation about this we had the week before; however, I do feel as if there is much more on this subject that can be explored.

Mixing Society and Morals

Question 1: If we were to give non-humans the same moral standards as humans, how would that change our society?

I find this to be a really interesting notion.  It may seem silly to some that we as humans could expect from a non-human the same level of moral behavior as we would from, say, our best friend. If we considered this notion, what would it take to actually do this? To what extent would we extend these morals, and how could we do so? I feel as though I have not come to a conclusion as much as I am left wondering more. If we were somehow to impose on non-humans the same moral standards as we do on humans our society would be very different. With the non-humans added there would be new moral codes of conduct and new issues to evaluate to include these non-humans. I think with this, yes we would have a change in our society or our society would have to change in order to include these non-humans and their morals, especially since these might not be the same morals we possess. They would have to be considered on a different level to be more inclusive.

Cognitive Abilities and Moral Standards

Question 2: What role does cognitive ability play in the moral standards we can expect of non-humans?

When we think of ethics and the fact that it takes into account humans and their functions, limits, and abilities it would seem as though those same things would be key factors in considering the moral standards to which we can hold non-humans. I believe the abilities and limits humans have make it so we have moral limits that we cannot pass; therefore, it is harder to impose moral standards on non-humans that may not be able to understand the reasons that they should meet any such ethical standards. So, I would say yes, cognitive ability does play a role, perhaps even a big part, in the idea of giving non-humans the same moral standards as humans. I also believe that this factor would change whether we give non-humans moral value or not.

Whose Fault is It?

Question 1: In the case of individuals who suffer from mental illness and commit suicide how would that be understood from both a determinist and free will point of view?

This question is actually really tricky, but I feel like it is an important issue to question within these circumstances. Firstly, I know that from the determinist perspective the suicide is predetermined. No matter what happened prior to the incident the suicide had to happen. The person does not have any way to change the events. Along with that, their mental illness is predetermined. The whole event, their illness and the suicide, was already laid out to happen. There was no way of interfering with it no matter what precautions were taken. If it happened, it was inevitable.

However, it becomes more complicated from the free will perspective. To what point can someone have control of a mental illness? I do not know how much of the free will perspective I have unraveled because there is a lot in that theory that makes this question hard to understand. One thing is certain: that the point of view on this subject from the free will perspective is very different from the determinist point of view.

Natural Laws?

Question 2: How does the state of natural law affect the idea of free will?

I feel like this blog post is very relevant based on the looming storm. I was wondering what effect the understanding of natural law has on free will. If we understand free will well enough then we can have some control of what happens in the wake of severe weather or natural disasters, things we believe are out of our hands. However, it would seem that if we have free will we could possibly change how we would act in the event of, say, a hurricane. It is, according to the idea of free will, up to the individual how they act in these situations. However, to a certain extent they cannot control how they react in certain situations. Some actions may be forced because of the situation. There is a fine line between what someone can control and what they cannot. I find the free will perspective to be rather mixed when considering things like this.

Running Out of Time

Question 2: Is psychological time still applicable? If so, who is it most imporant for?

"Time, why you punish me. Like a wave bashing into the shore." - Hootie and the Blowfish

       Outside of the 90's rock music, the idea of psychological time is really, really interesting to me. We did not get much time (no pun) in class to talk about this concept of psychological time. The idea that time is based in the mind interests me. I would imagine it to be that time runs based on your mental age. If you are, say, 18 years old biologically but grew up in hardship your mind might be like that of a 45-year-old, and psychologically your time is determined by whatever your mental age is. Whether or not it is still applicable to either philosophy or psychology I do not know. If so, I would gather that there is not much work done on the concept because it sounds considerably far fetched. For the last part of my question, who is it most important for, I would imagine it being most important for those who believe in the concept and want to do whatever they can to keep their psychological time from ticking away too quickly. The whole idea to me is very,very interesting and I would be interested to know if it is a concept still being used.

Timey Wimey

Question 1: In regards to the alternative theory of time flow, what about moments now at this time happening in England in a different time zone? It is not what we are operating on, so does that mean it is not happening?

                In regards to my first question, I still find myself unsure. I do know that in my understanding time flow is subjective to the individual. My understanding of time is the more popular understanding of time. I cannot find it logical to believe that just because I am nowhere near a certain place or time zone does that mean that time there is not flowing. It reminds me of certain philosophical theories where just because I am not experiencing something does not mean it does not exist.

       However, with other theories of time, like time being on many different wave lengths and that no one is on the same wave then, perhaps you could say that those moments in England are not actually happening. 

Cleverly Planned Meals

As Americans, our culture dictates that we eat three meals a day: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Of course there are those who stray from that, and miss meals or have extra meals; however, that mentality overall is most common in the States. When we learn about other cultures who may have four meals a day, or only two, we begin to wonder why. We judge them based on their meal habits or see them as an "odd" or strange. How we as a society have constructed everything down to meals and food just shows how strictly we build our society, feel the need to follow it, and see any deviations from it as an odd or strange practice. If that culture eats four meals a day because of the economics or supply available in the culture, it has a legitimate structural reason for doing so. In turn, they may see our culture of three meals a day as strange and perhaps not enough. Lastly, that culture of two meals a day could see our culture and the culture of four meals as a waste and unnecessary when it comes to the consumption of products. Again, this whole idea is constructed because of the way our society builds and sees things.

Aesthetic Subjectivity

I would imagine that many of us walk down the street and wonder what the people we pass think of us. Perhaps we wonder if, to them, our clothes look good, or if our outside appearance is pleasing to them. However, whether or not they approve of our appearance is completely subjective. Everyone's aesthetic tastes and values are different. Not everyone can agree on something that has the potential to be aesthetically pleasing. However, lately I have been talking about the subjectivity of aesthetics in general. This is also interesting when it comes to someone's views on themselves. What I consider aesthetically pleasing may be the complete opposite of myself. Or it may be the same exact thing. It's interesting to evaluate aesthetics on this level when looking at it from the point of view of oneself. The whole idea of subjectivity can be taken to a new level. What is or is not aesthetically pleasing about ourselves can be the complete opposite of what we find aesthetically pleasing in other people or other things. Although, I do think that most of us wonder how others see us aesthetically, or we evaluate how we see people and things. The whole idea of aesthetic subjectivity is still very interesting to me and I find myself thinking on it a lot.

Redefining Patriotism without Merica

          Is there a way to redefine patriotism without involving war or simply limiting it to “America”?

   With the article in mind, it is hard to say whether we can really talk about patriotism without mentioning war. Patriotism seems to bring a sense of war with it; those who are patriotic are those who support the war and believe in it. However, that is not always the case. There are those who are patriotic or believe in America who absolutely reject the ideas of war or violence. Yet because of the standing connotation behind patriotism, or the word patriotic, it is hard to include those individuals. So, can we define patriotism and make it a term less about war? If we were to do so it would have to be something like "a strong support for where one resides." For anything more extreme we could wander into more of a nationalistic perspective, which could end up being very dangerous. Also, what about just simply opening it up to more than America? It would seem the word patriot almost always refers to just one nation and it would be hard to sneak away from that. However, as I said before, we could make the term more encompassing and allow it to be more than war and violence. There is nothing wrong with pride in one's residency - however, it is wrong when there are people left out of that definition because of their world-views. So yes, I do believe there is a way to redefine patriotism while leaving out war and nationalism. Defining it as "a strong support for where one resides," where support entails things like buying products made in the nation (or other area) where one resides, but not saying that area is better than any other area would probably allow people to feel proud of an area without slipping toward nationalism.

It's not unusual to be natural

 Is it okay or “natural” for one to be partial about government and congress in an impartial setting?

This question is rather simple. I believe that it is more or less human nature for someone to be partial or biased, especially in situations dealing with politics and government. When the setting itself is neutral it seems to open up more possibilities of being one sided. I think it is natural for someone to find themselves leaning towards one side or one party. With government being so based on sides and choosing one it is natural for someone to find themselves choosing a side.

I do believe it is an interesting concept, though, in relation to patriotism. When we talk about patriotism we often mention government and sides, like people who are left-winged and right-winged. It just seems to come naturally to people, and it is often expected of them. When it comes to impartial government and congress settings I do believe it is natural for someone to be partial.

Education

     In a classroom setting, is it appropriate for the teacher to mention their own religious views? If so, how and where should they draw the line?

  
This concept is something that has been up for debate for quite some time now. Even today educators are debating the concept of religion in a classroom. In my opinion, as a student going to school to be a teacher, I believe these are issues that should be discussed. If and when religion is brought up in a classroom (secular schools aside), in my opinion, is something that should be brought up in a wide manner. For example, if a student asks the teacher a question about "God" or "Jesus" the teacher should do their best to leave their own religious affiliations out of the discussion.

 If a student brings up the matter of the teacher's religion, there is a fine line between when the educator should share their "faith" and where they begin "preaching" or forcing their views onto their students. This is where the line should be drawn; the teacher should take into consideration the diversity of their classrooms and respect the faiths (or non-faiths) of their students. This is also so the teacher themselves will not lose respect or cause a sense of disgust in their students because of religious views.

I believe that educators have the right to their religious or non-religious views, but I do believe there is a time and place for religion and the classroom may not be appropriate, unless the conversation can remain neutral and be fundamental and educational. With regards to a religion class, I believe that it should remain a theology course where ALL religions are mentioned and expressed and, once again, not one religion is put above another.

Accepting New-World Empericism

 Is it possible to study supernaturalism without accepting at least some aspects of this-world empiricism?

    From further class discussions and re-thinking the concept it would seem as though if someone were to study pure supernaturalism it would be very difficult to not accept aspects of real-world empiricism. However, there are some of those who do purely rely on supernaturalism and deny all aspects of real-world  empiricism. By doing so, there are severely limiting their ability to see something from all angles. The idea of leaving the answers to a spiritual or higher being without considering the stable constructs around one is very difficult to consider legitimate. I believe that you cannot properly study supernaturalism without seriously considering the logical aspects of empiricism. Without the this-world empiricism considered it would be difficult to say that "a higher being created this beautiful ocean," as you cannot consider the fact that this ocean does or does not exist without considering the this-world empiricist aspect. To say that a higher being exists and only a higher being, that there is nothing else, is illogical.

The ability to see ghosts or god

My Question: How can one justify or make sense of an experiential world wherein some people believe they have seen spirits or ghosts?


 During this week's lesson, I kept wondering about the idea of radical constructivism in the context of people who believe they have seen ghosts or spirits. If there is someone who says that they saw a ghost upstairs or thought they saw an apparition walk by, does that ghost actually exist ? If we are using the radical constructivist theory, the idea that this is something they have experienced means it is, in some sense, real. It now is something they have experienced, for it is a part of their world. However, is that truly applicable? In all logical thinking does that really mean the ghost exists ?


     Although I do not think I came to a solid conclusion, it would seem as though, despite the fact that these individuals have experienced these apparitions, there is no real way to construct the ghosts as something real. However, it is interesting because this entire theory excludes metaphysics, which might contain a logical reason for dismissing the idea of "experiencing ghosts" Despite that possible loopole in the theory, I do not believe that radical constructivist thinking includes the idea of seeing spirits and ghosts. It would seem as though it dismisses those concepts and does not really evaluate them.

No Metaphysics ?

My Question: Can one really explore the idea of conceived apples and experimental work without regarding metaphysics?

In Glasersfeld's argument on radical constructivism, he attempts to prove his thesis that we create, or construct, our own world based on our experiences. His view is indeed radical, and there are a lot of logical aspects that he leaves out in order to make his opinion seem valid. Without considering metapaphysics, his whole theory becomes unstable.

       The idea that one "constructs" one's world based on what one has experienced brings into question things one has not experienced, like a distant country that one is well aware of existing but has not experienced. The idea that this theory could make it so the object or place itself does not exist is very obtuse. It also leaves a lot of room for error. It would seem as though we cannot accurately talk about, or investigate, certain philosophical points without considering what is already set in stone - for which we need metaphysics. In Glasersfeld's argument, he makes he avoids including certain aspects of creating the world - like people and animals - because it is very difficult to consider these things and consider what is real and what is not without considering the metaphysical aspect of it. The author believes it is possible to just construct a world and a reality based on what we have come across. This is still a rather close minded idealology and does not include various realms of things and thoughts. To have such experimental thoughts it is really necessary to include a tangible foundation or concrete thought to base it on. The radical side of constructivism seems to severely lack this ability. It is also very hard to indulge in the idea of experimetnal work without considering a tangible being or object. The idea of experiencing something and that becoming part of a person's world makes sense until you take into account that Glasersfeld will not accept the notion of metaphysics, or at least will not include it into his radical view.

    One can almost go as far as to say that one cannot truly explore the idea of conceived apples and experimental work without metaphysics. Even though Glasersfeld spends a great deal of time explaining his theory, he leaves  gaps in his thesis that make the very radical ideal of constructivism hard to accept. With that in mind, it becomes even more difficult to accept it without including a base like metaphysics.

Dumpy and Delicate

My question is: When using words like “dumpy” and “delicate,” what values do these words carry regarding aesthetic and non-aesthetic properties?

Throughout the article, the author touches upon different concepts that other philosophers mention in respect to aesthetic values. One of the ideas he touches upon a lot involves the values implied by the words "delicate" and dumpy". From the reading and further discussions in class I have come to the conclusion that these words do hold value. In the case of non-aesthetic and aesthetic judgment of things, these words seem to dictate the way in which the object in question is interpreted. Of course, these words are not literal definition of the objects but they seem to help define someone's judgement of it.

 These words themselves have two very different connotations to them. "Dumpy" makes one think of something very disheveled and not well put together, and perhaps ugly and messy in appearance. If someone refers to an object as "dumpy" the value of the object decreases and it loses all aesthetic value. On the other hand the word "delicate" makes someone think of elegance, beauty and something with light aesthetic values. When someone uses this word to describe an object the aesthetic value of of the object goes up and it seems to gain value. These words do carry weight when they are used to describe the aesthetic values of objects and other things. They do seem to help define the way others see an object, therefore changing the object's value to others and the person seeing it themselves.

Beauty With the Loss of a Sense.

My question is: How does someone who is blind judge beauty? What is beauty to them?

The best way to answer this is purely speculation, because I am not blind nor have I lost my sight. Therefore I do not actually know how a blind person might see beauty. However, it is well known that when one sense is lost the others become stronger. This means that with those remaining senses they can still differentiate whether something is aesthetically pleasing or not. 

  They can say that warm homemade cookies taste better than year-old spinach. (Keeping in mind of course that beauty is subjective entirely.) Those who are blind can judge beauty at a whole other level. They can do this through the sense of touch as well. They would be able to say that a fuzzy blanket feels better than a cactus - although someone may see it the other way as well. They can also tell that a symphony sounds nicer than nails on a chalkboard.  Of course, this is pure speculation; I am not absolutely positive that this is indeed how someone who is blind judges beauty. However, I do believe that they do too have such ability. I would imagine that to them beauty means quite a great deal because they do not judge traditional beauty through their eyes like others. 

   

   The matter of someone who has lost their sight is different. If with age or by disease or accident an individual loses their sight, they still have in their mind what they once saw and thought of as beautiful. If they used to believe that gardens and flowers were beautiful they kept the compacity to see such things in their mind, making it so they can still judge beauty upon their own subjective opinions.