Natural Talent

Not only in the Classical Period does the discussion of natural talent arise for discussion. It is a debate on whether or not natural talent outweighs the actual learning of something. Of course, in the context of teaching rhetorical methods to your peers, some but not all are going to pick up on the styles and techniques. Natural talent for someone in the context of rhetoric can be considered a good asset to have. In the days of the Classical Period, your self-worth was based on your rhetorical skill and debate. The easier it was for someone to pick up rhetoric means a higher achievable skill level in the eyes of the Sophists. In their minds, a student who is already very observant and adaptable in many situations (like someone who is naturally gifted) is more likely to succeed and improve the realm of rhetoric and teaching. I think natural talent was highlighted back then due to the fact that rhetoric might not work as easily to persuade those types of people. They tend to be wiser, more adaptable, and conscious of the situation. They are also able to master the art of rhetoric faster than those who have to study long hours the art in order to improve.

In today’s society, we don’t refer to many smart kids in the classroom as having natural talent. There has been an increasing number of naturally-talented kids in sports, however. Education today is obviously not as it was in the Classical period. Back then, educational level was based on natural talent and skill level. In Ancient Greece, only the smartest and most naturally talented kids got to move up to a higher education level. In today’s society, there isn’t such a thing as rigid class systems that leave a child behind for not being naturally talented. If the minimum requirements are met, then they move on to the next grade level. In my mind, the word talent has changed just as the educational systems have changed.