# Would you rather be blind or deaf... and why?



## Kopachris

I recently had a chat with someone on Omegle. We opted to be spied upon, and the spy asked us the question "Would you rather be blind or deaf? Explain." It was a very easy decision for both of us. I said that I would rather be blind. He said that he would rather be deaf. From his arguments, I gathered that his decision was based on practicality--American Sign Language is complete enough to allow a deaf person to remain completely functional and able to express what he or she needs to express in day-to-day life. I, however, placed music and range of expression higher than functionality. I could still read books using braille, I could still get around with a cane, a guide-dog, or even echolocation, and I would still be able to hear spoken language and listen to music. I contended that no matter how complete ASL is, spoken language, music, and other "sound effects" are still more expressive. The stranger told me to watch a YouTube video of someone signing, and I did. I responded (truthfully) that it seemed to me that ASL was more expressive than written language, but not as expressive as spoken language.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Operafocus

It's one of those "what would you rather have - pest or cholera?" scenarios, isn't it :lol: 

I've asked myself the same question over the years - what would be worse? Could I live with never seeing anyone again? For starters, getting older would be more fun, cause I'd have no idea how wrinkly I got :lol: Then again, I'd probably also get completely paranoid. Being blind feels like more of a "trapped" condition than being deaf, cause you lose the ability to have an overview in any situation. But could I live without ever hearing music again? See, the answer to that would probably be no. I have a total obsession with voice, whether it be spoken or sung, and if that went... I'd find it hard to be social (what are you supposed to do? Only have friends who are bothered about learning sign language? Write notes and pass them around?) if I couldn't hear anything - whereas if I was blind, I'd always wonder if I was missing something. Body language is very vital as well, and losing the ability to pick that up... 

I guess the answer is that making a choice would be impossible - both would suck, but I'd probably learn to live with both. People do. And they should be admired for it.


----------



## Couchie

As much as I love music, I'd easily give it up and be deaf rather than blind.
I could still get a lot of enjoyment out of reading sheet music.


----------



## kv466

Rather be blind


----------



## hawk

I'd rather be blind in one eye and deaf in one ear~


----------



## Ukko

At least in my neck of the woods, survival would be less of a challenge with deafness than with blindness. Shucks, I could still drive.

I have heard deaf people humming; rather strangely, but usually recognizable. There is some sort of bone conduction device that works better now than it used to - or so I've heard.

Given the choice though, I'd go_ Hawk_'s route.

I just noticed that my sig is at variance with my published opinion; oh well, consistency is boring.


----------



## Polednice

As much as I love music, I'd rather be deaf.

I couldn't live without seeing the people I love, and I don't think I could manage the range of reading I'd like to achieve with Braille. I think being blind would generally be scarier and more dangerous as well.

I might have to give it more thought if a distinction was made between going blind/deaf _now_, and being born blind/deaf.


----------



## Meaghan

When I saw this thread, I thought pretty much everybody would rather be blind than not be able to listen to music. Surprise! 

As for me, I'd definitely sooner give up my sight than my hearing.


----------



## jurianbai

don't you remember ludvy? 

true music is only in your imagination. 

go deaf is far temptating, you can still see your lady without the need to listen.


----------



## elgar's ghost

As much as I'd miss my music if I lost my hearing I don't think I'd miss much else - certainly not traffic, music I DON'T like, over-loud TV volume in pubs, screaming children, annoying ring-tones, electric strimmers or petrol-driven lawn mowers at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning when I want to lie in after a heavy night etc etc. And if I lost my sight? No more reading, no more colours, no longer able to fully appreciate the adrenaline rush of a sporting event, no longer able to wonder at the beauty of the countryside or the sky or the fairer sex. And that's just for starters! Another reason I'd prefer to keep my sight is because losing it would mean having to go through more of a rigmarole in order to adapt than if I were to go deaf. No, I have to say that the visual world is more important to me by far than the audio one.


----------



## Chris

I would rate sight much higher than hearing. You can get by with deafness but with blindness you lose your independence.


----------



## hawk

Chris said:


> I would rate sight much higher than hearing. You can get by with deafness but with blindness you lose your independence.


Interesting observation (pun intended)...I have met people who are totally blind who are just as independent as any of us. With or without vision or hearing we are dependent on each other, our family and friends, our commuity...


----------



## Almaviva

I'm impressed with some of our members' commitment to music. As much as I love music (and I'm pretty much obsessed with opera) I'd rather be deaf, since being blind is a much higher level of disability. OK, by being deaf I'd lose music, but I'd find some other hobbies. World literature, quality cinema with closed captions/subtitles, and would be able to keep others that I already like such as sports. And I'd still be able to see my wife and my children, drive, work easily in various capacities, understand people by lip-reading, communicate in writing or through ASL, browse the Internet, etc. Don't you guys realize how much more limited is the life of a blind person? Of course to each person his own, but I actually think that chances are that those who have replied _blind_ haven't really considered the whole picture. Of course, for those of you who are musicians, it's a different story, but for those who are just music lovers, come on, music is great, but seeing all the shapes and colors and people of this world and being pretty much independent from the help of others for your daily activities seems to me a lot more precious than the ability to listen to music.

I don't pretend to pass judgment for others and respect each person's preferences and opinions... but just as a statistical experiment, I'd rather bet that if we got all people who have responded _blind_ but are not musicians (for musicians, like I said, it's probably different since they'd be losing their bread-winner) and got them to live 1 week with completely sound proof ear plugs and then 1 week with firmly attached eye patches, more than 50% of them would change their minds and pick _deaf_ over _blind_.


----------



## Rasa

Music is out. And I'm a musician.

If I were handicapped, I would at least want to be entertained. When deaf, I can still read, watch tv, movies, play video games. Also, you can live entirely independently. This is worth a lot more then the ability to listen to and play music, even to the extent that I can earn my living with it.

Choosing the other way around seems to me to be a romanticised choice. "Living for music " blah blah blah. The reduction in quality of life is just too big.

I would probably be more then sad over music. But hey. It's a though choice that has to be made.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

As absolutely crippling as it would be to lose my sight, I think that in the end I would choose it over being deaf. I've thought about this topic multiple times and even if music didn't exist, my world would be flat and hollow without sound. To me if I were a jar, the painting on the outside of the jar would be my sight... but the liquid which filled me would be sound. If that makes any sense whatsoever. Sound is much more of a full sense than sight at least for me. Sight is a bit more superficial in contrast to the other senses and though I would morn it's loss I think that I would prefer it to loss of hearing.


----------



## Kopachris

Almaviva said:


> I'm impressed with some of our members' commitment to music. As much as I love music (and I'm pretty much obsessed with opera) I'd rather be deaf, since being blind is a much higher level of disability. OK, by being deaf I'd lose music, but I'd find some other hobbies. World literature, quality cinema with closed captions/subtitles, and would be able to keep others that I already like such as sports. And I'd still be able to see my wife and my children, drive, work easily in various capacities, understand people by lip-reading, communicate in writing or through ASL, browse the Internet, etc. Don't you guys realize how much more limited is the life of a blind person? Of course to each person his own, but I actually think that chances are that those who replied blind haven't really considered the whole picture. Of course, for those of you who are musicians, it's a different story, but for those who are only music lovers, come one, music is great, but seeing all the shapes and colors and people of this world and being pretty much independent of the help of others for your daily activities seems to me a lot more precious than the ability to listen to music.
> 
> I don't pretend to pass judgment for others and respect each person's preferences and opinions... but just as a statistical experiment, I'd rather bet that if we got all people who responded "blind" but are not musicians (for musicians, like I said, it's probably different since they'd be losing their bread winner) and got them to live 1 week with completely sound proof ear plugs and then 1 week with firmly attached eye blinds, more than 50% of them would change their minds and pick deaf over blind.





Rasa said:


> Music is out. And I'm a musician.
> 
> If I were handicapped, I would at least want to be entertained. When deaf, I can still read, watch tv, movies, play video games. Also, you can live entirely independently. This is worth a lot more then the ability to listen to and play music, even to the extent that I can earn my living with it.
> 
> Choosing the other way around seems to me to be a romanticised choice. "Living for music " blah blah blah. The reduction in quality of life is just too big.
> 
> I would probably be more then sad over music. But hey. It's a though choice that has to be made.


Of course I understand that there's more to life than music. I understand that being blind is a much more disabling condition. Let me clarify: I didn't choose deafness over blindness just for music. I understand that choosing deafness is definitely the practical choice, but it's not a matter of practicality to me. It's a matter of personal philosophy. I don't need to see. I can visualize what I'm not seeing far better than I can imagine what I'm not hearing (oftentimes, the sights I imagine are far better than the sights as they actually are). And it's not like I'd need assistance 24/7. The mind adapts to blindness eventually; blind people can still walk around and read literature (I'd give up Internet, though, because I can't stand those text-to-speech voices).

It's a personal choice for me. For a lot of people, the practical choice (deafness) would be better.

And Almaviva, your 1-week experiment seems flawed to me, since we're talking about a lifetime (or rather, the remainder of a lifetime). One week isn't long enough to learn to cope with either condition. The question is, once you learned to cope, which would you be more comfortable with? Granted I won't be able to tell you for sure unless I've actually done it, but I _think_ I'd be more comfortable with blindness. Call it an escape from what I don't want to see, if you'd like.

Of course, some slight paranoia affects my choice as well. If I were deaf, how could I be sure someone wasn't talking bad about me behind my back or sneaking up on me? 

Hmm... I feel like quoting a passage from _Les Misérables_ about how Monseigneur Bienvenu felt after going blind, but I don't have a copy of the book on my shelf, and I'm not sure how well it would be received ("citation needed" and such). Oh, well.


----------



## Almaviva

Kopachris said:


> Of course I understand that there's more to life than music. I understand that being blind is a much more disabling condition. Let me clarify: I didn't choose deafness over blindness just for music. I understand that choosing deafness is definitely the practical choice, but it's not a matter of practicality to me. It's a matter of personal philosophy. I don't need to see. I can visualize what I'm not seeing far better than I can imagine what I'm not hearing (oftentimes, the sights I imagine are far better than the sights as they actually are). And it's not like I'd need assistance 24/7. The mind adapts to blindness eventually; blind people can still walk around and read literature (I'd give up Internet, though, because I can't stand those text-to-speech voices).
> 
> It's a personal choice for me. For a lot of people, the practical choice (deafness) would be better.
> 
> And Almaviva, your 1-week experiment seems flawed to me, since we're talking about a lifetime (or rather, the remainder of a lifetime). One week isn't long enough to learn to cope with either condition. The question is, once you learned to cope, which would you be more comfortable with? Granted I won't be able to tell you for sure unless I've actually done it, but I _think_ I'd be more comfortable with blindness. Call it an escape from what I don't want to see, if you'd like.
> 
> Of course, some slight paranoia affects my choice as well. If I were deaf, how could I be sure someone wasn't talking bad about me behind my back or sneaking up on me?
> 
> Hmm... I feel like quoting a passage from _Les Misérables_ about how Monseigneur Bienvenu felt after going blind, but I don't have a copy of the book on my shelf, and I'm not sure how well it would be received ("citation needed" and such). Oh, well.


People would have an easier time sneaking up on you if you were blind. Just watch that famous thriller about a young blind woman who is attacked by an intruder in her home (I forgot the name). She does prevail at the end but only when she has the brilliant (no pun intended) idea of also blinding her opponent by turning off all the lights in the home. While she is blind and he isn't, she is totally hopeless and helpless.

My experiment would be intended to just make the subject realize the full implications and the full impact of each of these disabilities, to be able to pick in a more informed state of mind. Sure, with time people would learn to cope with both disabilities, but I proposed this hypothetical experiment just to convey the notion that the degree of disability in blindness is much higher than in deafness.


----------



## violadude

One thing to consider is medical advances in recent years too. Are doctors closer to curing deafness or blindness?


----------



## Philip

i once considered voluntarily blinding myself so that my reasoning and mental abilities would skyrocket... is that strange?


----------



## graaf

> i once considered voluntarily blinding myself so that my reasoning and mental abilities would skyrocket... is that strange?


No. People consider all kinds of things without doing them.



> I understand that choosing deafness is definitely the practical choice, but it's not a matter of practicality to me. It's a matter of personal philosophy.


I wanted to stop reading here, but I forced myself to read until the end of the post. Aaaaaand... I didn't have to. There wasn't much of philosophy anyway.

PS
Why someone who loves wisdom (philo + sophia) would not be practical at the same time? I'd say that wisdom is very practical.


----------



## Ravellian

Really, my life would be empty without music. I think I'd rather be blind, then maybe I wouldn't have to work and I could just listen to music (and books on tape) all day.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Must I choose? Aaaaeeeergh!


----------



## Kopachris

How about this: I am young enough that I would eventually adapt to either condition just fine. Someone who has been blind for 20 years doesn't have any more trouble getting about life than someone who has been deaf for 20 years. By saying that it isn't a matter of practicality for me, I am saying that I am young enough that they would eventually become equally practical. However, my perception of the world wouldn't change as much with deafness as it would with blindness. Therefore, I choose blindness because it's more likely alter my perception of life in some meaningful way instead of _only_ being a disability.

Now, if I were older and more settled in life, I think I'd be more likely to choose deafness over blindness so that my life would remain as close to "normal" as possible. Because I'm young and not settled in life at all, the idea of a life-changing disability doesn't repel me as much.

On the other hand, I would rather have super-powered vision than super-powered hearing. I like my sense of hearing just fine the way it is and would give up my sight to keep it that way if I had to, but I'd rather have more sensitive/detailed/clear vision than hearing because I'm _currently_ missing fewer auditory details than visual details.

And remember, this is all hypothetical. I would much rather live with both hearing and sight than missing either.


----------



## Sid James

It's a "catch 22" kind of thing which I can't answer. But I suppose that's why you made this thread,* Kopachris*.

...But I can understand where you're coming from, a number of musicians who were/are blind have not let that get in the way of their careers. Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, or the young Japanese pianist Noboyuki Tsujii (recent winner of the Van Cliburn Competition, no less). In terms of deafness, a number of composers who developed hearing impairment stoically went on & continued to compose, Faure is another example apart from Beethoven. Like some people above, I too admire how many people with these impairments are able to live their lives in a full and deep way. Eg. I remember a switchboard operator at one of the places I worked who was totally blind, or near to that - she had a guide dog - she got on the bus to go home at the end of her work day, same as other "sighted" people like myself...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I'm not sure! It would be way more impractical to go blind, but my vision's not great anyway. I feel like if I chose deafness, I'd just go blind anyway in half a century. I'm sure vision doesn't have a "life bar" and my logic's wrong here, but still.


----------



## Rasa

Kopachris said:


> How about this: I am young enough that I would eventually adapt to either condition just fine. Someone who has been blind for 20 years doesn't have any more trouble getting about life than someone who has been deaf for 20 years.


If they live to see 20 years instead of being hit by an unseen motorvehicle.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Rasa said:


> If they live to see 20 years instead of being hit by an unseen motorvehicle.


As opposed to a seen motorvehicle? (har har)


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> How about this: I am young enough that I would eventually adapt to either condition just fine. Someone who has been blind for 20 years doesn't have any more trouble getting about life than someone who has been deaf for 20 years.


I'm not convinced that's true...


----------



## Kopachris

Rasa said:


> If they live to see 20 years instead of being hit by an unseen motorvehicle.


If I'm blind, but not deaf, I can still hear a motorvehicle approaching from any direction (unless it's one of those super-quiet smart cars). They also train guide dogs for those situations. If I'm deaf, but not blind, I'm limited to only seeing the motorvehicle in front of my eyes.

This wasn't supposed to turn into an argument about which one is better. Being given the choice of sudden blindness or deafness for the remainder of your life is an extremely unlikely situation, so a decision either way is entirely inconsequential. It was a "would you rather" question. I asked you to explain your own reasons behind a personal decision, not defend your decision or attack others' decisions. I suppose this is my fault, though, since I was the one who responded to Almaviva and Rasa's criticisms of choosing blindness instead of deafness.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> This wasn't supposed to turn into an argument about which one is better. Being given the choice of sudden blindness or deafness for the remainder of your life is an extremely unlikely situation, so a decision either way is entirely inconsequential. It was a "would you rather" question. I asked you to explain your own reasons behind a personal decision, not defend your decision or attack others' decisions. I suppose this is my fault, though, since I was the one who responded to Almaviva and Rasa's criticisms of choosing blindness instead of deafness.


Of course it's your fault!

Remember: Justice is blind, but the law is not. It is however, often deaf to reason.

:tiphat:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I've seen the most beautiful things I could have seen already. The Hermitage in St-Petersburg, my wife, my two sons, my two dogs...I don't think there is still interesting things to see out there (at least not so interesting than before). I love reading but there are audio books...Blind rather than deaf.

Martin


----------

