William of Ockham was a 14th‑century Franciscan friar from the village of Ockham, Surrey. We now spell his name and the place “Ockham,” but the Latin form Occam gave us the standard label for his best‑known principle: “Occam’s Razor.” The “razor” is only a metaphor: it’s a mental tool for shaving away whatever is unnecessary in an explanation or argument. The maxim holds that you should always prefer the simplest theory that genuinely fits the facts and the law, and treat extra moving parts as a demerit in an argument, not a mark of sophistication.
Vauvenargues, an 18th‑century French aristocrat and moralist, radicalized that preference with his line: “When a thought is too weak to be expressed simply, reject it.” Where Occam’s Razor shaves off needless assumptions, Vauvenargues’s maxim shaves off needless complexity in expression. For him, a strong idea can always be stated in plain terms. If a proposition looks plausible only when wrapped in complexity, the problem is with the thought—not the language.
Together, these ideas set a demanding standard for legal advocacy: choose the simplest adequate argument, and then frame its core in one short, clear statement. If you can’t do that, assume that the argument is defective and either cut it back until it’s simple and strong, or else abandon it as a sure loser—especially if your adversary has a straightforward argument. You must devise a better one yourself.