(May 24, 2018 02:02 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: What does.talent mean to you and I'm not referring to a form of currency.
Usually there's some system behind the scene that appropriates an everyday word and its plural meanings for a purely specific purpose in its technical nomenclature. But if a person doesn't like the ambiguity of ordinary language to begin with (the confusion and misrepresentations it can generate in discourse), then in some cases there's practicality in making one's own distinctions for words as long as they're stated as being in play for the sake of precision (or the personal adjustments are easily inferred as taking place).
Quote:I'm talking about ability to perform a task. Perhaps no doubt some people are more skilled and able to do different things and some or all of it is genetic.
"Skill" is acquired and thereby would also indicate training having taken place to mold even a raw, indigenous capacity. But
human resource management muddles up the meaning of "talent" in this age of social justice policing, where businesses worry about treating an individual or group of such as more "special" than the bulk of employees. Not to mention that they're surely referencing workers that are already beyond the innate stage -- that have received schooling, training, conditioning, etc (i.e., skilled).
Quote:Physical abilities aside, could intelligence be a talent? Not just that but being adept at the subjective, does that take.talent? Are there varying degrees?
Potentially any ability as long it wasn't outputted and conditioned originally by formal instruction. But characteristics common to the general population (like intelligence) would have to be of an unusual level to qualify as "talent". Which in turn seems to suggest that the term is indeed a refinement of more generic "aptitude", stressing gravitation toward accomplishment or success (though a synonym role is still arguably there).
Quote:For example: does it take.more talent to be theistic than atheistic and if so, are some people better at religion than others? Can talent reach the subjective and could.philosophy be considered a talent discipline .
Due to the aforementioned, an aptitude (rather than talent) would be more applicable in the context of theism, atheism -- unless achievement, celebrityhood, prosperity, etc are actored in. There are also qualms about subsuming doxastic states (beliefs) under either term if the latter are often job-oriented. (Which is to say, why resort to minor classification error to begin with if "inherent" or "inborn" suffices?)
Of course, there's the question of how valid any claim of talent is versus it being incubated by environmental stimulation early on in the life of a child. But one that exhibits a genius caliber knack for picking-up something without formal instruction would probably qualify. "Innate" might even be replaced with "non-formal acquisition" with regard to yet another added, tweaked definition of "talent", if that alleviates a fear of "genetic mysticism".
~