Can an article with a question as the title be short?
Unfortunately, no.
To fully dive into this question, we must take a broader look at what it truly means to answer a question and, to answer this, we must first define what it means to be.
Bishop George Berkeley coined the latin phrase “Esse est percipi” (roughly translated to “To be is to be perceived”). While this, at first glance, seems to be a simple redundancy of a statement, upon a deeper dive we may truly encounter the meaning behind his stance. Berkeley is not creating this discourse to say that everything we see is real, but, in fact, he is proposing the opposite: that all we see around us are ideas and, simply what we choose to believe, becomes. On this foundation will I lay the overarching thesis of this article which I find to be “A question does not simply seek an answer, but moreso, a definition of what is being asked and, in that definition, shall a path towards the beginning of a solution be discovered.”
Human history can be traced back to the time of the early humans. Before language, humans still found problems and desired solutions. Me hungry: I must eat. Me weary: I must find a safe place to sleep. Me horny: I must milk my eel into the warm crevasse of maiden. The ones who found the best food, the safest caves, and the wettest caves were the ones set up best for success. These primal human urges are the true beginning of humanity’s desire for knowledge. Those with the most knowledge have the most access to necessities. Those with the most access to necessities are the best equipped to propel themselves into situations of power. Those with the most power rule those with the least. From the conception of humankind, people have been in desired power and have found the easiest way to it through knowledge.
So now you may be asking yourself: “If the answers are all we seek, what is even the point of the question?” My answer for you is, in a way, answered by the question you just asked.
The world can be a scary one. It seems everyday a new tragedy occurs, but the solutions to tragedies remain rare. In troubled times, one has two options: draw into themselves or seek community. While, from a safety perspective, drawing into oneself is a much better short-term solution, it is in the long-term where we reap different results. To be clear: I am not referring to the idea that “people are bound to get lonely at some point” because I don’t fucking give a shit about that. I don’t care. At all. It doesn’t matter to me. I don’t even freaking care. Uh, oh, you are lonely? Poor little guy…not! I don’t even give a tiny little wet little shit about you. No, you see, the long term results refer to data sets over hundreds of thousands of years, not simply singular lifespans. The reasoning is simple: those who seek comfort in others often desire to grant comfort to others as well. This means, plain and simply, these are the people who are more likely to have and raise children. So, while isolationism and community both grant safety, only one leads to a future generation. As such, these future generations are raised solely by those who value community itself. This means that the people who are able to find answers without engaging in the monotony of posing questions for others to ponder alongside them are an endangered species. So, to answer your question: the “question” itself simply exists as a medium through which we may relate to others.
So here we are. We have found reason for question. We have found reason for answer. Now, we must address the connection. Sure, the discourse proposed with every question asked does bring about a spark of humanity itself, but that alone does not warrant the entire human condition which has found itself wrapt in question after question since the dawn of time. The true connection is a simple one: we question for our own safety. To blindly believe without question has led to the downfall of many a man. This questioning nature in which humans find themselves serves as a natural protection against the unknown and, when paired with a well-formed answer, we, as humans, are able to build the bridge from unknowing to knowing. So the question and answer themselves each serve their own purpose, but when properly paired (like a medium-rare steak and a Cabernet Sauvignon) the each find a new purpose: to simply reach each other. Humanity once again mirrored in the ways of itself.
So, no, an article with a question as a title can not be short. It must be long and it must delve into every possible interpretation of what is being asked of it. That said, can a conclusion to a well researched article be short if everything from the thesis statement has been answered in full?
Yes. Yes it can.
About the author
Daniel James Schneider (born January 14, 1966) is an American television producer, screenwriter, and actor. He created and produced a string of children’s shows on Nickelodeon from 1994 to 2019. In the years since 2018, he has faced significant media coverage and controversy regarding allegations of inappropriate behavior. Daniel enjoys bocce ball, a lot. He is really, really good at it. Unfortunately, he does refuse to let anyone else throw the starting white ball, though. He always says “Fine, you can do it this time” and right as you reach for it he tosses it over his head and says “Hook shot!” Then, when you try and go grab the ball to throw it yourself, he says, “Wait! This is a good one. Let’s play it where it lies and you can throw the next one.” BEWARE! He will not let you throw the next one! Also, he is a sexual predator. He currently lives at home with his loving dogs Charlie and Cinnamon.
