Theory is good as long as it fits in two sentences

Recently, I’ve opened one of the books my college demands me to read. After reading few paragraphs, and at least two chapters – I have one important observation: that theory over two sentences starts to live its own life.

In comparison of theory vs practice, the most important thing is its purpose.

After reading part of book which I mentioned above, I’m able to see a pattern of how it was created. Author had few ideas and a mission to write a book. Ideas were either simple or poor, so, it should take approximately fifty pages to explain them. However, there was a problem, because he had to write a three hundred page screed.

Back in time, like 3000 years ago, majority of people didn’t know how to write a sign. Such technology was known only to the elite of the elite, it had a clear purpose: to contain core information. After few thousand years form and use of it changed. It started to be a medium of art – for people to enjoy it. At the same time it started to be a medium of educational information – people could learn from it. Everything was very valuable even to the richest elite, and they had respect to the paper. Back in 1900 year and later – ability to write started to be very popular. Everyone could become an author, and it is where problems start.

Because paper was quite rare good in our ancestors times – they respected it, and put on it only things, which had real value. Like mathematic formulas and recipes for medicines. Nowadays, form of it changed and everyone has access to internet. Our whole knowledge is on Wikipedia and Google – you can find everything you need. It makes us virtually know everything. And makes us lose the purpose of writing. We tend to write only to write.

If you can’t explain it in two sentences, you either don’t understand it yourself, or the idea has a problem.

It’s a metaphor, but it can show you the lead. How engine works, is not an topic for a one sentence explanation, but you can do it either the easy way, or the problem way. Easy way is laying information in the most simple language you know, in the smallest number of sentences you can. If I would want to explain to you how to write an good article, I can tell you either to write twenty of them and learn, or to “use sophisticated ways to explore the idea, by surpassing current situation, and the way to you goal leads through natural development of twenty personally tailored posts”. I call bullshit. First way is obvious to people older than age of six. Second one is not so easy even to me, despite the fact that I wrote it.

If you get the idea of compressing your thoughts – good. If not, then we will have more megabytes of text. Actually, people who want to pass their knowledge use the most simple language they know, because the simpler the language, the more people get it. People who want to prove their value, and someday teach others – will use the most sophisticated language even to describe their breakfast. It is useless, it wastes space. Such language has a use in art or science to accurately describe number of atoms in rocket petrol. But not to teach people how to manage a company. Moreover, it’s plain theory.


If one has to use empty words, maybe he does not necessarily have to say anything?

One wise guy one day said:

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.

This wise guy was Plato. I would like not to insult anyone, but what is the purpose of talking or writing if your content doesn’t contribute to the topic? I get it, that gossip is important, but why would you litter public space in form of opinions, essays, articles or books, only to try your luck? There is so many good propositions, which contain a lot of positive emotions and information, that we don’t need paragraphs written in this style containing more “somethings” and “maybes” than real value.

Just remember that theory was meant to make practice easier. Not to become a pararel being, living its own life.


Subscribe below to get more every week!


Leave a Reply