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.