About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Perigo,
Sure you have all the right to be angry, to rant, to lash out, to be irrational and malicious, to whine, and to just behave like what we Chinese call a “small man”. What’s more, you also rightfully deserve to be regarded as such.
 
Regards,
 
Hong




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am actually absolutely amazed by this thread.

Linz said

"Talent is a mix of innate endowment *and* hard work."

 

And Shayne concurred:

"Which is something that no one posting to this thread would disagree with."

 

Except that at the very heart of this article (I do hope that you guys have ACTUALLY read it), Kelly said:

 

"Talents are inborn, not chosen. They are the equivalent of beauty."

 

I guess I will now go working hard on my beauty!

 

 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/22, 11:23am)


Post 62

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

OK, I forgot how ridiculous her article really was. Whoops.

Robert pegged a key issue here in his post 13, that there are different definitions of "talent" being used here. Kelly's is based on the common (and incorrect) one that floats around in the culture at large; mine and Linz's is based on a philosophical understanding of the source of talent (a mix of innate endowment and hard work).


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

What a delight to see you back. You were missed these last few days (despite a sporadic post or two). I guess I am in my tail-wagging thread, what with you (and Hong earlier) returning...

You wrote,
I cannot quite imagine a person having a real talent for, say, painting, and happily deciding to do something else. Can you conceive, for example, of a Mozart deciding he didn't want to compose music?
One of my exes in Brazil is a painter (Lenora, a dear sweet woman who is very confused at times - but our problems were never my fault, of course!). She painted abstract, academic, anything and everything - and she did it on on just about any surface she could put a brush or writing instrument to. She is extremely talented, has a bit of a name down there, and when when we separated, she had done well over a thousand paintings (probably much more - it was hard to keep track).

I remember occasions when she ran out of canvases and paint and we had to wait a couple of days until more money came in. That was no problem at all for her. She would paint her art on the doors, walls, tabletops, just about anywhere. She would even use house-paint when necessary. She learned computer graphics programs to "paint" and even once painted the computer monitor shell for lack of a surface. I saw her paint over finished paintings several times just so she could use them as a canvas.

She painted because she could not bear to not paint. 

These people do exist. You don't learn that urge anywhere. It is inborn Her facility was also inborn. Technique is the only things these people basically learn and choose. Well, maybe sense of life too...

Michael


Post 64

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit





(Edited by Kelly Reynolds Elmore
on 4/22, 4:37pm)


Post 65

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I deleted all the content of my last post because I decided that I shouldn't have answered Hong's post. It has been answered before. I think that anyone who _wants_ to know what I meant by talent knows it by now. I also shouldn't have answered Shayne's mean post. No need conversing with someone who uses insults rather than reasoned arguments. (It might be interesting to look at Shayne's profile. I think it gives us an idea of the kind of person we are dealing with).

I hope that people won't let Shayne and Hong's messages distract from the direction Barbara took this thread. I am thinking more about her point, and I hope other people will have something to say about whether or not people can turn away from their talents.

Spiteful people be damned, I'm carrying on with this thread!
Kelly



Post 66

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kelly: What do you mean by the word "talent"?

To me, "talent" means something which a person is better at, relative to other people. Notice how subjective this is. What is "better"? Which other people? "Inborn"? Sounds like mysticism to me. Yes, people are capable of doing different tasks to various degrees of success... but surely they can improve.

I think it is reasonable for a person to do the best they can to fulfil their goals. To do less than the best they can is to forfeit some amount of their goals. I generally enjoy doing things which I think will accomplish my goals in the most efficient manner.

Kelly: You say that you do not enjoy writing or language arts. Would I be correct to induct that you do not think doing those things is the most efficient way for you to accomplish your goals?

Post 67

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean, I would disagree that "talent" is necessarily socially comparative. I could be alone on a desert island and realize that I have a "talent" for carpentry, but little for cooking. The comparisons can simply be among my own skills.

Earlier we already established that there were two separate meanings of "talent" being confused here. One definition meant "skill," which is an acquired or refined ability to do something. The other definition of talent was "exceptional natural capacity." These are not the same, but both do exist. People do have different genetic endowments; people also develop particular skills to exploit those natural capacities. 

By "talent," Kelly meant natural endowment or capacity, not developed skill. Rather than get hung up over the term being used, we should focus on the concept being debated.


Post 68

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The definition of "talent" that Kelly referred to was what is known as "raw talent" -- which she called "inborn" and which Robert correctly called natural endowment or capacity.

I tend to agree with Barbara that a person must acknowledge and use a real talent because it will "demand fulfillment."

The virtue of productivity (vocations, avocations) refers to our relationship with reality, with the way we directly relate to reality, with our delving into reality on a very personal level. Since we are all made a little (or a lot) differently, we must all have some difference in our relationship to reality -- some difference in how we wish to interact (work) with reality. I tend to think that that difference, that uniqueness (and the accompanying talents) will become a visceral need on our part to fulfill so that we can be happy in our interaction and efficacy.

I don't have scientific data to back this up, obviously. And, in fact, it would most likely take a tremendous psychologist and hundreds or thousands of objective patients to discern whether one must abide one's talents.

So, to piggyback on Barbara, I'll just say that I can't imagine a Mozart or a Shakespeare or a Frank Lloyd Wright or an Edison being happy doing anything other than what they did (or something VERY similar, if talents are more broadbased). As for those of us who have perhaps lesser talents, we most likely would still need to find the thing(s) in reality that satisfy those talents best (That's one of the great things about capitalism's division of labor and thousands of potential job experiences!).

Talents may be specifically about certain innate abilities that refer to orientations that have to do with the spacial or verbal or abstract or concrete or social or physical or (most likely for most of us) a combination of them all. Da Vinci may be an example of a genius with a mixed bag of talents who could be happy only with several vocations and/or avocations.

P.S. There could be a VERY long article (book) on the subject of picking a career or careers.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 8:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Elmore,

Thank you very much for you input in this thread. Since now you are here, I want to apologize to you because your wife Kelly are hurt by my post, though that has never been my intention. I did want to make a point that was unrelated to Kelly but I did it in such a way that was thoughtless and inconsiderate toward her. For that I apologize.

 

I do, however, disagree fundamentally with the points made in her article, and I will try to explain.

 

Before I can go on, I want to make a couple of disclaimers. First I have NOT read all the posts in this thread, except the article itself and some of posts that followed mine. So, if I miss something, it is not intentional. Second, the word "talent" I use here has the same definition as in the original article, i.e. "raw talent" or "natural endowment or capacity".

 

Perhaps I shall start from paraphrasing my own statement that has led to this article, that I consider that an artist, or simply any man, in pursuing values in life, must be true to his talent and passion. I stand by this statement more firmly after having given it more thoughts.

 

A person’s talent and passion are often aligned (using Kelly's word). It is not by accident, but by reason.

 

Thus man must be true to his talent as it is now aligned with his passion. It is not by moral obligation, but by reason.

 

However, if surrendering one’s reason is considered immoral, then, yes, men are bound morally to be true to their talent.

 

I’ll now attempt to make a Randian-like deduction.

 

We are men on earth. By our nature we desire a flourished life. Man possesses a mind that is capable of reason, and the reason “is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival”. Each of us is endowed with various innate talents to vastly different degrees. By our reasoning we would conclude that if we are to make maximum use of our innate talents, we would achieve maximum values in life most efficiently, circumstance allows, of course.

 

Thus if a person forfeits his natural talent, i.e. not pursing values by doing things that he is good at, but instead insists on doing something that he is not so good at, it verges on irrationality and stupidity.

 

Then what about that a person just “don’t like that stuff that much” or even "hate it"? This sort of  statements struck me as mystical emotional whims that are devoid of reason. Emotion is not a cause. It is an effect and we need to understand the root of its cause. My 8 year old son has already learnt that he will never use “I don’t like it” as an excuse or reason for not doing something. He must give me a real reason or reasons, otherwise he will do what I say.

 

Ok, I will use my son as an example to illustrate my points. Two years ago, my son started ice skating and piano lessons at about the same time. His ice skating soon progressed to a level that once a week lesson and practice were no longer sufficient for the development of the new skills that he learnt in each lesson. Although he felt exhilarating on ice and told me “I feel like I could skate forever”, it was impossible for me to take him to the ice rink everyday. So he gradually started to lag behind other kids in the same group and eventually lost interest. He then asked me to let him quit skating. After a few more months of struggle, I granted it. In this incident, my son had a legitimate reason for not being able to like skating and that reason actually lay with me that I could not provide him the necessary support for him to continue.

 

His piano lesson is entirely another matter. Like all kids, he doesn’t like practice. Once he was so reluctant to practice, I said to him “Well, if you don’t want to do what your teacher asks you to do, maybe we should quit the piano lesson. What’s the point?” I then saw tears starting to well up in his eyes, and he went back to the practice. He clearly loves music, has a strong bond with his teacher, and enjoys playing piano tremendously. I want him to understand from an early age that whatever he will pursue in life later on, hard-working is a default. And it should be an established habit early on. There is just no easy way around it no matter how talented or passionate a person may be, let along us lesser mortals.

 

Well, that’s for my 8 year old boy. For people in their 20s or even 30s, if they still use “I just don’t like that stuff very much” or "I hate it" as an excuse without real reason for not following their talents, giving all opportunities, well, I have a few things to say but I will not say them here.

 

Dissenting respectfully,

 
Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/24, 12:27am)


Post 70

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well along with Hong, I owe Kelly an apology for the first sentence of my post 62.

Post 71

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

Thank you for the apology. It is thorough and thoughtful, and I thank you again for it, but I must say that I don't think you've yet apologized to Kelly in such a direct way. You have said that you're sorry she "felt so bad," but you've never really apologized to her for your own actions, as you did with me. It would be just for you to do so.

Back to the topic at hand.

 If I'm not mistaken, the following quote by you is the essence of what you think on the subject of talents:
Thus if a person forfeits his natural talent, i.e. not pursing values by doing things that he is good at, but instead insists on doing something that he is not so good at, it verges on irrationality and stupidity.
I address this in post 68. I tend to agree with you and Barbara that a person probably should abide one's real talents, but I don't think we can say for sure. I don't think we have gathered enough evidence yet to say FOR CERTAIN that a person must go with his own talents to be happy in life.

Having said that, I've found that with myself, it is SOME of my talents that I get the biggest kick out of (business planning/negotiations, golf and writing), and so I pursue these things, with writing being the one that gives me the most pleasure and in which I believe I've got the most talent. But I've also got other talents, such as math, that I don't pursue much at all. When I was a child, everybody pushed me to do something in math, but the only real interest I have in it now is doing Trig to build a roof for my storage building or doing quick muliplications for Kelly or balancing my checkbook, which I actually enjoy doing. :-) So what does this mean? How do we measure talents? Which are we best at? Which give us the most pleasure? Are the best and the most pleasurable in alignment -- always?! It seems sometimes that I'm almost as talented at math as I am at the others above, but I don't have any desire to pursue any career in math. Perhaps there is some aspect of math that I'm getting out of my other pursuits, such as business planning or the spatial aspects of golf. But why don't I  go into a truly math-oriented career instead of the three I mentioned above? I don't know the answers to these questions. The only thing I can say about math is "I don’t really like that stuff that much," as Kelly said about her scholastic writing. I do, however, like very much to write, golf and do business planning. Maybe the math talent is just a byproduct of my other talents? Maybe I've got both spatial and verbal talents. Maybe one more than the other.

As far as morality is concerned in this matter, it is obviously linked to rationality. Since the point of life is happiness, and since we must be productive to be happy, we have a moral obligation to discover what vocations/avocations will make us the happiest. (I find this to be a fascinating subject, and it has been the object of many get-togethers with our friends in the Atlanta Objectivist group.) The only way to truly know whether something is right for us is to ask the questions: "Do I like this stuff a lot? Do I want this to be a regular part of my life?" This goes for talents, too. If we are talented at something, we must ask ourselves, "How much to I like this? Is it enough to be a career? Is it enough to only be a part-time avocation? How much time do I want to give to it? Will it just be for a short period of my life (like high-impact sports for the young)? etc." If we find that we love something and want it to be a part of our lives and yet we don't pursue it, then we are definitely being irrational and stupid. Thankfully, when we become objective, we courageously pursue that which makes us happy.

P.S. Please call me David. I noticed that the only other time you used "Mr." was when you were mad at Lindsay. ;-)


Post 72

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne, thank you for your apology. 

Kelly


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

I like this post very much. You have made several outstanding points and defended them by argument and example very well.

1. Reason is man's primary attribute.
2. Flourishing is man's primary purpose for living.
3. Maximum flourishing occurs when one makes the best use of his innate talents.
4. Emotion is an effect, not a cause. We must understand the root causes of our emotions and not just follow blindly follow our emotions.

Your stories about your eight year old son tell me a lot. As children our critical reasoning faculties are not developed to their adult potential. But the choices we make about what we pursue are very very important to our later flourishing as adults. This illustrates how extremely important it is for a child to have a loving, reasoning parent as a guide to his actions. Our loving parent has the reasoning ability and the ability to see the long term that the child does not have. Also the ability because of experience to see the talents that the child possesses. Making important decisions for the child teaches the child the importance of reason relative to emotions and gives the child the ability to make similar decisions for himself, based on reason, later as an adult. These lessons are much harder to learn as an adult if you haven't already learned them through the efforts of a parent.

Thank you Hong. It's great to see you again.

Post 74

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

Thus if a person forfeits his natural talent, i.e. not pursing values by doing things that he is good at, but instead insists on doing something that he is not so good at, it verges on irrationality and stupidity.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are getting at here, as it can be interpreted in a number of ways.  For example, in the pursuit of values, what constitutes "pursuit"?  Is it enough to dabble in the things one loves to do, or is it required for a person to make a living via his talent in order to be considered moral by these standards?  If that is the case you are making, I respectfully but emphatically disagree.

To offer a personal example, I did not choose to pursue food writing as a career until about a year ago, because it simply didn't pay, and the marketplace did not offer an outlet I found to be suitable for my kind of work.  What I've realized along the path is that in order to exhibit the kind of work that makes me feel happy and fulfilled, I had to create my own outlet for it.  That I chose to pursue other values before making such a decision is neither immoral, irrational, nor stupid.  In fact, it is quite practical, and far more suitable than the life of a "starving artist" -- or one in which I was required to compromise my principles.  If, conversely, I had made the decision to continue to do something else, and write in my spare time, I would still not consider such an action to be immoral.

A person might be a wonderful saxophone player, but how is he immoral if he chooses to be an accountant by day?  Such a choice *does* pursue a value -- self-sustenance.

If I'm off track, and have completely misinterpreted you, I welcome any clarifications.  And welcome back.  :)

Jennifer


Post 75

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David,
I used "Mr" because that was my first post to you, so I felt a bit of formality might be in order. :-) My apology of cause goes to your wife as well.

Mike,
Yes, you summarized my long posts wonderfully. Thank you very much.

Jennifer,
Ha, you immediately caught the point that I hadn't developed at all in my "short" post. No, of cause by "pursuit" I don't mean a person has to make a living via his particular talent. I realize that and I mentioned "circumstance allows" or "given opportunities" in the post as the pre-condition for one to follow his talents. Yes, "starving artist" was exactly what I had in mind. "To flourish" presupposes "to live". I don't have disagreement with you at all.

It's good to talk to you again!

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/24, 1:37pm)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/24, 1:47pm)


Post 76

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer, in post #74, touches on a point that is much more relevant today than it used to be and will be much more important in the future. The increasing division of labor that capitalism promotes means that one must be always alert to new possibilities for expressing one's abilities.

Perhaps it's not possible to support oneself today doing what one loves. Does that mean one should currently "starve" or should one succeed in other endeavors while keeping that love alive as a hobby? And what if the market for one's love never materializes?

There is no one "right" answer. Objectivism is not a set of rules.

Post 77

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The thing I liked about Hong's post was the same thing that bothered me about the initial article. Emotions are not tools of cognition, just because one doesn't feel like doing a certain set of things doesn't imply that one shouldn't do it. And having talent is a good reason to consider checking one's premises, possibly revising one's emotions, and doing it.

On the other hand, just because your parents declare you to have talent for some field doesn't mean you should do it either. There's really pitfalls on either side here.

This is a complex topic.


Post 78

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And what if the market for one's love never materializes?
That's where those other developed skills come in handy.  ;)  In my case, I shall build it and promote it, and hope to hell they come.  :D

Hong, I thought that definition of pursuit might be the case, and I'm sorry that I missed the pre-condition in your post.  I should have read more carefully.

I'm glad the discussion on this topic is continuing, because I have found, from personal experience, that it can become an issue of what nourishes one's soul vs. what fills one's pocket.  As Barbara alluded to, when a talent "must" be expressed, it will torment you until a vent is found.  Such inner signals cannot be ignored, but it sometimes takes every ounce of brain matter we have to figure out a way to make it applicable in our daily lives.

When I worked in corporate purgatory (account side of a leading marketing agency), I would cry almost every day on the way to my car, wondering how I had managed to get so far away from what I loved.  But there were bills to be paid, and until a better solution was available, there was no other option. 

So I spent my spare time writing limericks and stories for my creative and account teams, and exploded with enthusiasm for things like the Halloween party (handmade Oompa Loompa costume) and the "Hidden Talent Showcase" (decadent food styling display with articles).  As I was on my way out the door to my dream job, they offered me a creative position.  Thankfully, it was too late to accept it.  :)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 2:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne, you said "On the other hand, just because your parents declare you to have talent for some field doesn't mean you should do it either."

I hope I haven't given you the impression that I remotely mean that?! ;-)

Ok, in the case of my tyrannical behavior in my son's musical education, I never declared that he had any musical talent. His piano teacher did. And I didn't believe her for a long time! ;-). Second, by all signs, my son himself likes music very very much. This inclination of his is not mysterious to me at all. Just to think a little bit, I can come up with many reasons WHY he likes music:

1. He is good at it.
2. He quickly become the best student in the class, which means he always plays the last in the group recital. This has boosted his self-esteem tremendously and made him proud of himself.
3. Classical music is beautiful.
4. He found a way to express himself.
5. The stories about composers are very interesting and inspiring.
6. Being able to play is simply cool!
7. From the admiration of his friends, he might subconsciously deduce that this skill of his may be useful in future to attract mate....Ok, this may be too much a stretch.

But the point is that there are causes behind our emotions and the more we understand them the better.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/24, 6:25pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.