I know people who fall into both categories and I can't figure out which is more upsetting to me. I'm leaning towards the first, though.
2007-03-18 18:20:31 · 12 answers · asked by earthtojoe 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Performing Arts
neither is "tragic"
not having a safe place to live, being sick/in chronic physical pain and no health coverage, having to scrounge for food-now that is tragic-the rest is fluff
2007-03-19 05:08:24 · answer #1 · answered by Salsa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to say talent without ambition. Ambition without talent is a little bit more comical...I mean think about it(you've all seen at least one episode of American Idol). Talent without ambition is tragic because you end up not following your passion and being miserable. Or throwing your life away to something that can be destructive to your well-being or character.
2007-03-19 02:58:21 · answer #2 · answered by Sarah Jane 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
both but more so with the first one.
I wouldn't be typing this answer if bill gates had no ambition. I wouldn't be listening to this song if 50 cent had no ambition. This world would be a bleak place. We would resemble animals more than humans if no one had the ambition to change anything.
The ironic thing I realized while typing this is that I myself started life with ambition to spare. however, the world we're raised in today(Im still young)has squashed any ideas we might have of making a real difference.
2007-03-18 18:34:16 · answer #3 · answered by axe happy juggalo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously the first "talent without ambition" - because we as a society can benefit from such a person if they had ambition. At least with ambition without talent, we can make a spectacle of them (i.e. American Idol).
2007-03-18 18:23:54 · answer #4 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can develope talent, but not ambition. Ambition just comes to you, like talent. I like pure talent, because the work would not be so goal oriented.
2007-03-18 20:29:02 · answer #5 · answered by apprenticeidiot 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
talent without ambition because people have the ability to do something but the they don't. at least people with ambition but no talent are trying.
peace
2007-03-18 18:26:31 · answer #6 · answered by Shadow Lark 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, talent without ambition is more tragic: without ambition, your talent will soon be lost. You "use it or you lose it".
On the other hand, an ambitious person can develop his/her "hidden" talent.
As for the idol auditionees, maybe their talents lie elsewhere.
2007-03-19 04:29:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ambition without talent. although it can be entertaining on american idol, it gets annoying, and time consuming. And i am trying to get into show biz, so talent w/o ambition doesn't bother me that much. Less competition...
2007-03-19 10:33:03 · answer #8 · answered by three4three 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Talent without ambition would be the more tragic.
The first one is basically talent wasted.
The second one is more positive; maybe the person doesn't have talent, but they deserve the chance to try and make improvements.
"Try" is the basic "key" word.
2007-03-18 18:25:03 · answer #9 · answered by Living In Korea 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
talent without ambition. definitely. because what would the world be like if celine dion, mariah carey, whitney houston, christina aguilera, just wanted to be a cashier, a real estate agent, a janitor, or a salesgirl? the world would be empty of some of the greats.
2007-03-18 19:41:49 · answer #10 · answered by luvr8810 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ambition without talent is sad. Look at the 'Idol' auditions....now that's real sad.
2007-03-18 18:23:50 · answer #11 · answered by !!joinCampaignforLiberty!! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋