It’s not a matter of being an optimist—it’s a matter of simple fact and logic. All people can do something–it means they have a talent to do something (even at a minimal level). This is not saying they are the greatest at something–there is NO definition of someone have no talent because there is no such thing. In fact, somebody could be quite BAD at something but still have talent.
When I have been speaking of “talent” I have been, for the sake of argument, using Definition #4 from a post further back in the thread, that emphasizes “special degree of ability.” Like yourself, I do not necessarily think that’s the
only use of the word, but this is what sedonaman means by the word.
In other words, sedonaman is saying that not everyone has special abilities. I myself feel that even that may not necessarily be true (the only way to know that someone had
no special ability would be to have that person attempt to do every single act possibly imaginable and prove that he had no special level of skill at
any of them, which I doubt anyone will ever have the time to do), and I was willingly restricting myself to that definition of the word to make that point.
But the thing is, and this is just my (name removed by moderator)ut, in order to get anywhere in this discussion, I think that we’re going to have to admit that the word “talent” is causing problems, specifically because we’re seeing disagreement on what it means, and a reluctance to speak on one anothers terms.
If I may be so bold, please allow me to point out what I see:
Sedonaman is saying, in effect, that not everyone has “a special degree of ability”. That is to say, not everyone has something that they are unusually skilled in compared to the average person. He is not saying that some people have no ability at all, just that some people have no
special (in the sense of unusual level of) ability.
Operalan is saying that
everyone has at least some degree of
ability. He is not saying, necessarily, that everyone has something that they are unusually good at compared to others (you might believe that everyone does, Operalan, so I’m not saying you don’t believe they do, just that this is not the point you’ve been making in this thread).
Now, I’ve only stated the obvious no doubt, but my suggestion is this: In order to get anywhere in this conversation, you’re going to have to stop using the word “talent” and use something more specific, such as “special degree of ability.” Because the original argument that came up will get lost if the debate shifts into the meaning of the word “talent”; since the dictionary itself gives different meanings of that word, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere on that particular issue, unless one side or the other is willing, for the sake of argument, to grant the other’s interpretation of the word at least for the sake of this conversation…
Just my (name removed by moderator)ut, for what it’s worth.
Since it is unusual, it is rare. By definition there have to be people without talent, otherwise it wouldn’t unusual or rare. :nope:
That is not necessarily true. It is hypothetically possible for everyone in the whole world to have unusual or special levels of ability IF they have them in (relatively) different areas. Here’s an analogy: “Precious Metals” are, by definition, rare…but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be, in theory, a LOT of precious metals, as long as each individual precious metal was fairly rare. There could, for example, be 6 thousand precious metals, but each one was, on its own, rare enough to be precious. Just so, there could be thousands of different possible “special abilities”, such that each individual ability was excelled at by few enough people to
be “special” but there were still enough
different special abilities, in theory, to go around so that everyone had one, even if he may never find it…
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
