O
Operalan
Guest
Absolutely. Even the people who have the least Christian of motives have talent.
And yes, all people have talent. We can’t make up our own definition of what talent is.
- Status
And yes, all people have talent. We can’t make up our own definition of what talent is.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I didn’t make it up. To say that everyone has talent is misleading people into kidding themselves.
talent - a superior, apparently natural ability in the arts or sciences or in the learning or doing of anything – yourdictionary.com/talent?
I
itullian
Guest
why would God give talent to bad/evil people?
S
SonCatcher
Guest
For the same reason He gives talent to anyone. To use it to glorify God.
The fact that bad people abuse their talents by not using them rightly is unfortunate but does not negate their intended purpose.
O
Operalan
Guest
Christ preached on talents and thankfully, he didn’t even need a dictionary. As your definition implies, a talent can be in ANYTHING. Superior, however, is not necessarily a matter of talent (it would be a degree of talent). My dictionary, Oxford, doesn’t use the word “superior” at all. Everyone does indeed have talent.
S
sedonaman
Guest
No, they don’t. If everyone had talent, the word would lose its meaning.
O
Operalan
Guest
Talent, as defined by my dictionary, is an “ability”. All people have some kind of “ability”. You may have an ability to type and discuss on the internet. That means you have a talent to do so. Whether you are better at this “talent” or have gifts that make you type faster or discuss more succinctly shows to what degree you have a talent and how well you’ve developed it.
Indeed, all people have talent. What we do with that talent and how it is developed is the vital question.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Then a chimp has talent. :dts:
V
vjnycguy
Guest
Chimps are animals… they can’t have a talent because they aren’t a human. Don’t humanize an animal. You can teach this chimp to do something but that doesn’t mean he has talent, it means you can teach.
S
sedonaman
Guest
But Operalan’s definition
doesn’t exclude animals, which is why “Everybody has talent is absurd.” It dilutes the meaning of the word. Sorta like saying everyone is a winner.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Apparently, an older meaning of the word, “talent”, included animals:
From Merriam-Webster dictionary
2
archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
These are the more common meanings for the word today - also from the Merriam-Webster dictionary
3
: the natural endowments of a person
4
a : a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude
b : general intelligence or mental power : ability
It seems to vary. One definition describes what this thread is talking about: athletic, creative or artistic ability. The word, “special” is used to further describe it. To me, that would mean that the person isn’t just someone who can play “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” on the piano with one finger (unless, of course, that person is playing Mozart’s variations on the melody), but people who can read music and play their instruments well with some level of mastery. There are different levels of talent, either due to lack of study/technique or encouragement or they weren’t endowed more.
The special musical abilities of the composers mentioned in this thread didn’t just have talent, but a freakish, genius talent. Theirs transcended “talent” in a way. That was partly what the story of Amadeus was about… someone like Salieri who had musical talent was respected by his peers and patrons (and in real life whose talents were well-respected by Mozart to the point where he sent his children to study under him) and, in the story, was overcome with jealousy because he felt that God did not endow him enough with the level of musical gifts He had given to Mozart. When you listen to Salieri’s compositions, you can see he most certainly had talent. He had a “natural endowment”, but it wasn’t at the level of genius which Mozart displayed in many of his compositions.
When you look at the number 3 definition “the natural endowments of a person” and the letter “b” definition of talent, “general intelligence or mental power: ability”, you could possibly say that everyone has some sort of talent since it does not seem to differentiate between people who have mastered or genius talent and people who just have a natural ability/endowment.
If you are not staying strict within the 4.a definition, it is very easy to see that many, if not all, people have some sort of talent. Whether or not those talents are considered “worthy” of praise and admiration is another story.
O
Operalan
Guest
And that you have a great talent for teaching!!!
O
Operalan
Guest
Some of you are starting to get it. We ALL have talent. Some just have more of it. Some have more diligence in developing and embellishing their talent. We are required to make the most of all of our talents and will (as the parable clearly shows) have to make an accounting for our talents—whatever they may be.
Spiritual GIFTS are talents as well. What we do with those gifts is important–some people have a talent to encourage others better than someone else does. Some have a talent for teaching students, some have a talent for trimming hedges (I just spent hours doing that—I have little talent in this department but hold my own)—there are many different kinds of talent—and each of us has one. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven simply had an ABUNDANCE of talent concerning music, the culture that supported that talent, and the discipline. In some ways, there was an extreme lack of discipline in other matters which stifled, at least in the case of Mozart, his talent far too soon.
Spiritual GIFTS are talents as well. What we do with those gifts is important–some people have a talent to encourage others better than someone else does. Some have a talent for teaching students, some have a talent for trimming hedges (I just spent hours doing that—I have little talent in this department but hold my own)—there are many different kinds of talent—and each of us has one. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven simply had an ABUNDANCE of talent concerning music, the culture that supported that talent, and the discipline. In some ways, there was an extreme lack of discipline in other matters which stifled, at least in the case of Mozart, his talent far too soon.
O
oval
Guest
deleted
S
sedonaman
Guest
It seems that most people here don’t make a distinction between “talent” and “ability,” whereas I do.Apparently, an older meaning of the word, “talent”, included animals:
From Merriam-Webster dictionary
2
archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
These are the more common meanings for the word today - also from the Merriam-Webster dictionary
3
: the natural endowments of a person
4
a : a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude
b : general intelligence or mental power : ability
It seems to vary. One definition describes what this thread is talking about: athletic, creative or artistic ability. The word, “special” is used to further describe it. To me, that would mean that the person isn’t just someone who can play “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” on the piano with one finger (unless, of course, that person is playing Mozart’s variations on the melody), but people who can read music and play their instruments well with some level of mastery. There are different levels of talent, either due to lack of study/technique or encouragement or they weren’t endowed more.
The special musical abilities of the composers mentioned in this thread didn’t just have talent, but a freakish, genius talent. Theirs transcended “talent” in a way. That was partly what the story of Amadeus was about… someone like Salieri who had musical talent was respected by his peers and patrons (and in real life whose talents were well-respected by Mozart to the point where he sent his children to study under him) and, in the story, was overcome with jealousy because he felt that God did not endow him enough with the level of musical gifts He had given to Mozart. When you listen to Salieri’s compositions, you can see he most certainly had talent. He had a “natural endowment”, but it wasn’t at the level of genius which Mozart displayed in many of his compositions.
When you look at the number 3 definition “the natural endowments of a person” and the letter “b” definition of talent, “general intelligence or mental power: ability”, you could possibly say that everyone has some sort of talent since it does not seem to differentiate between people who have mastered or genius talent and people who just have a natural ability/endowment.
If you are not staying strict within the 4.a definition, it is very easy to see that many, if not all, people have some sort of talent. Whether or not those talents are considered “worthy” of praise and admiration is another story.
S
sedonaman
Guest
For the umpteenth time, no we don’t. :dts:
I will agree that some people are more talented than others, but that doesn’t mean that everybody is talented. Below the talented zone, there are those of us with ordinary abilities. If we go all the way down to the bottom of the ability zone, we find people who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.
These are all irrelevant to what constitutes a talent.
No, we don’t. [See statement above.]These are ordinary abilities.
And no one could say their talents were not abilities of unusually high quality. :nope:
This too is irrelevant to what constitutes a talent.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Because you have made that distinction for yourself, it would explain where you are coming from. That said, “ability” and “talent” are considered synonyms and they are often used interchangeably. Both words are also applied within each of the actual definitions. When you look up “ability”, one of the first words to describe it is “talent”. It seems to me that you are following a very strict definition of “talent” (the 4.a definition I mentioned in my post), which is fine. Many, and perhaps most, people do not, thus utilizing the other definitions of both words, which is also fine. It does show why there is a difference in opinion.
S
sedonaman
Guest
And I say that when they are used interchangeably, “talent” loses its meaning. Consider the statement, “She has talent.” Now consider, “She has ability.” Is there a difference, or do the two convey the same meaning?
O
Operalan
Guest
Have to say, this is a fun discussion.
Indeed, “talent” and “ability” or synonymous.
If you are typing on a computer, you have a talent–an ability–and you have it to a greater degree than others. This is a talent. You are more talented than others on this particular item. That you are using English in a clear and concise manner is a talent that many others do not have. With every post that you make, you are showing that you have a talent to understand how to express your thoughts and have the talent, as well, to type–to use modern technology. Many people don’t have that talent. But they have others.
Indeed, all people have talent.
Indeed, “talent” and “ability” or synonymous.
If you are typing on a computer, you have a talent–an ability–and you have it to a greater degree than others. This is a talent. You are more talented than others on this particular item. That you are using English in a clear and concise manner is a talent that many others do not have. With every post that you make, you are showing that you have a talent to understand how to express your thoughts and have the talent, as well, to type–to use modern technology. Many people don’t have that talent. But they have others.
Indeed, all people have talent.
S
Sarabande
Guest
To me, they convey the same meaning, only because I have always learned they were the same. I have heard statements utilizing “ability” and “talent” for instrumentalists and singers (I’m a professional musician) of various levels - student, emerging professional, professional, etc. When “talent” and “ability” were mentioned, the meaning was always the same. For instance, statements like this one, interchangeably using “ability” or “talent”, is not unheard of, “(Singer’s name) was breathtaking in the role of 'Opera title”. Her ability/talent as a technical virtuoso, balanced by her artistic sensibilities for the aria “title” allowed her voice to move the audience with such emotion that etc. etc."
The singer is obviously a master of her art, due to the use of such descriptions as “technical virtuoso” and “artistic sensibilities”. When a person reads that, you know that the singer is no hack and is understood that “ability” means “talent” and vice versa.
Now those same words have also be used in statements referring to students and emerging professionals. They still mean the same, but at a different level of talent/ability. For beginners, you might hear something like this, “The child has a natural gift. She has the ability/talent to become an excellent musician one day.”
Perhaps the words are used differently for other abilities like in sports (about which I hardly know anything.)
Anyway, interesting discussion.
- Status