The definition of "temptation".

[DJFlare84]

I recently got into a debate with a friend of mine about this and I'd like to gather un-biased public opinion on this. I won't state who held which stance to further ensure a lack of any bias.

First I will offer an example scenario, and then I will offer the two different standpoints on the matter.

~EXAMPLE~
A man is offered 10 dollars by some woman to perform an unsavory task. The man refuses the offer easily, not believing 10 dollars to be anywhere near enough to make up for what he will lose in return. He does not find the offer tempting in the least.

STANCE-1: The woman was not tempting the man because the man did not feel tempted.

STANCE-2: The woman was tempting the man. It counts as tempting simply because she made the attempt, regardless of how the man regarded her offer.

So now I'd like you to give your thoughts, and I will include a poll. I have set the poll to allow you to change your vote at any time you wish.

EDIT: Before anyone points it out, yes, we indeed also argued about the official definitions as listed in Mirriam-Webster's. Don't be the douchebag who tries to pull a "let me google that for you". Nobody ever likes that.

 

[Jeckel]

What's wrong with the actual definition of the word?: "a desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise."

Your first definition is correct in that it is not temptation if you are not tempted, but temptation is a noun and therefor not an "act", but a thing.

Your second definition is completely wrong for temptation and more closely describes the verb meaning of 'to tempt'. The proper definition of temptation does not require an actor to tempt someone as it is just a description of what a person feels and not a description of an action.

 

[DJFlare84]

What's wrong with the actual definition of the word?: "a desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise."

It would be very hard to answer that without revealing which stance I took on the matter. All I'll say is that the person who stood for point 2 believed the definitions as stated on Dictionary.com could easily define an act as well as a feeling.

Your first definition is correct in that it is not temptation if you are not tempted, but temptation is a noun and therefor not an "act", but a thing.

Your second definition is completely wrong for temptation and more closely describes the verb meaning of 'to tempt'. The proper definition of temptation does not require an actor to tempt someone as it is just a description of what a person feels and not a description of an action.

So you would say that tempting someone is much like trying to set someone on fire? And that thus it is only definable as an act when it succeeds? ie, setting someone on fire, tempting them?

 

[Jeckel]

Success may define the outcome of an action, but it doesn't define the action itself. If I wave a $100 bill in someones face, I am tempting them, even if they aren't tempted to take it. If I put a flame to someone, then I am setting them on fire, even if they are wearing flame proof clothing and don't catch fire.

Most words that describe actions don't explicitly include the outcome of those actions as part of their definition because outcomes are to wide and varied.

You can be tempted without someone actively tempting you and you can actively tempt someone without them being tempted.

 

[Tsuki]

I believe it's a temptation whether or not it's successful. What are we going to call it if it's not successful? Attempted temptation? That's why "Tempt" is in the word temptation to begin with. Tempt seems to be a word like "try" in that whether you're successful or not at what you tried to do, you succeeded in trying. (Unless of course you didn't give a damn either way, in which case you didn't try.) And considering "attempt" is nearly identical to "try" anyway.

That's just my take on the matter though. It's a bit ambiguous, yeah, but for me it helps to look at the root word of tempt, and attempt. If "attempt" is something I try to do, "tempt" would be something I try to get you to do. Whether or not you did it, I still tempted, and you resisted. Even if you ignored me, even if you had the desire to do it and decided not to, even if you almost did it but didn't, it was still very much me tempting you but you resisted.

Not "You" as in you, but "you" in the for-sake-of-the-situation sense. Not that I actually think this is your interpretation or anything.

Basically, I feel parts of both points are correct. That's why the word has two definitions. Temptation as an act, and temptation as a feeling. If you resist the act of temptation, you will not have the feeling of temptation. You can have the feeling of temptation even when there is no act of temptation. You can perform the act of temptation without anyone having the feeling of temptation.

 

[Voyager]

It really depends upon your view of the Universe. If you take an inward-looking view, then the first definition is correct, if you have an empirical view, the second.

 

[DJFlare84]

Success may define the outcome of an action, but it doesn't define the action itself.

It really depends upon your view of the Universe. If you take an inward-looking view, then the first definition is correct, if you have an empirical view, the second.

I only ask that you all cast your votes in the provided poll.

That's just my take on the matter though. It's a bit ambiguous, yeah, but for me it helps to look at the root word of tempt, and attempt. If "attempt" is something I try to do, "tempt" would be something I try to get you to do.

For the record, I'd like to state that the words "attempt" and "tempt" are not actually related in any way. Attempt simply means "try", whereas "tempt" would be the root word in "tempting" and "temptation".

 

[Tsuki]

For the record, I'd like to state that the words "attempt" and "tempt" are not actually related in any way. Attempt simply means "try", whereas "tempt" would be the root word in "tempting" and "temptation".

Not linguistically related, no, but do you disagree that "tempting" is basically "I'm trying to get you to do something?"

 

[DJFlare84]

Not linguistically related, no, but do you disagree that "tempting" is basically "I'm trying to get you to do something?"

I couldn't rightly answer that without revealing my stance on the matter! Which is very very hard but must be done in the name of SCIENCE.

I wouldn't mind continuing this particular discussion over PM's though, out of the public's eye. Just don't tell anyone.

 

[Sombyr]

Temptation can mean either, and is not primarily used as either, imo. I think this seems more of a question of view points and how a person thinks than who is correct.

 

[DJFlare84]

Temptation can mean either, and is not primarily used as either, imo. I think this seems more of a question of view points and how a person thinks than who is correct.

I suppose that's as valid an opinion as any. I'll add it to the poll.

EDIT: And for anyone interested, I have added more information about the events that lead up to this debate for your consideration.

Friend-1 is playing a game he likes. He wants to convince Friend-2 to play the game.
Friend-2 does not want to play the game. He has heard bad things about the game.
Friend-1 tries to convince him not to pay attention to those bad things, because he has actually played the game and thinks it is pretty great.
Friend-1 thinks Friend-2 should trust his opinion over those of random internet heresay.
Friend-2 is getting fed up with the constant attempts to get him to play. He accuses friend-1 of "tempting" him.
Friend-1 argues that it is not a temptation if Friend-2 is not feeling tempted.
Friend-2 argues that it is a temptation by the mere fact that Friend-1 attempted to tempt him.

 

[Bonabopn]

Both. Words are defined by their use, not their dictionary entry. c:

 

[Palkia the living Palkia]

What the is this thread all about. This is bad, I could quote the title.

On topic: No it actually means the fact you want to block a 5 year old's shot in basketball and you are 3x his size.