What does this explanation even mean?

What even is an explanation for a phenomenon? And what does that explanation actually signify?
What does it truly mean to "understand" something?
Why did people look up at the stars and assume they were something more than just tiny little glowing pebbles floating in the sky?
Why do we insist that things aren't what they seem, and where did this obsession with demanding an explanation come from in the first place? What is an explanation, anyway? It feels like we’re just running in circles here.

Arthur Grant4 said:What defines an explanation of a phenomenon? And what is the actual significance of such an explanation?
What does it truly mean to understand something?

Explaining a phenomenon simply means establishing its connection to other phenomena. In essence, explaining is the knowledge of how different things relate. To understand something is to possess that specific knowledge.

Arthur Grant4 said:Why did people look up at the stars and assume they were something more than just tiny glimmers in the sky?

Because humans possess curiosity and imagination.

Arthur Grant4 said:Why do people assume things aren't as they appear, and where does this drive to demand an explanation come from? What even is an explanation? It feels like we've come full circle.

Things don't require explanations; people do. Why? Because of curiosity. You are being curious right now by seeking an explanation for the "explanation of phenomena." Thus, the circle is closed. ☕

Peter Jackson4 said:Explaining a phenomenon just means linking it to other things. It’s essentially knowledge of relationships. To understand something is simply to possess that network of connections.

Flawed logic. You can't explain one mystery by tethering it to another, nor through their relationship. That just uses one unknown to mask another, creating a third mystery out of thin air...
Take a simple example. Try explaining the concept of a human being. Or if that's too much, try explaining an apple. To truly explain one apple, you'd have to account for the entire universe—its origin, its structure, space-time, matter, consciousness. It's impossible.
That doesn't mean farmers stop watching the weather and growing apples, though.😉
Explaining or "understanding" an object isn't the same as knowing reality. Understanding is just shaping an object within the mind. Consciousness is reduced to mere intellect. For practical purposes, I suppose it suffices.
👋

Arthur Grant4 said:What exactly constitutes an explanation for a phenomenon? And more importantly, what value does such an explanation actually hold?
What does it truly mean to "understand" something?
Why did our ancestors, while gazing up at the night sky, assume those stars were something more profound than mere tiny, flickering pebbles suspended in the void?
Where does this impulse come from—this belief that things aren't always as they appear, and this nagging demand for an explanation? And what even is an "explanation"? It seems to me we've simply ended up right back where we started.

It's because THINGS ARE NOT what they APPEAR TO BE.

It’s quite straightforward, really.

Now, am I permitted to move on to other questions?

Rachel Bishop said:That’s incorrect. You cannot explain one phenomenon by referencing another, nor through their relationship. Attempting to explain an unknown via another unknown simply creates a third unknown—the relationship itself.

Everything we perceive is a phenomenon. Learning occurs when we identify relationships between these phenomena. There is no "third unknown." That third element is actually knowledge; it is the only thing we can truly grasp. That relationship constitutes the explanation.

Rachel Bishop said:Take this example: try explaining the phenomenon known as a human being. If that is too difficult, try explaining an apple. To do that, you would have to account for the entire universe—its origin, its structure, space-time, matter, and consciousness—just to explain a single apple. Which is impossible.
In the meantime, orchard owners don't stop monitoring the weather and growing apples just because they lack such answers.😉

You seem to be looking for explanations that encompass everything. Since we don't know what "everything" is beyond what we perceive (the phenomena), we cannot explain it all. Such totalizing explanations don't exist. An explanation is always partial. For instance, here is a partial explanation of a human: a complex, organized collection of matter resulting from evolution.

Rachel Bishop said:Explaining or understanding reality is not the same as knowing reality. To understand reality is merely to give it shape within the mind. It brings consciousness down to the level of reason, which is perfectly sufficient for practical purposes.
👋

Fair enough, but then what exactly constitutes knowledge of reality?

😕

Peter Jackson4 said:Everything we perceive is just a collection of phenomena. Learning happens when we identify the relationships between these phenomena. There is no "third unknown." That third element is the cognition itself. That is the only thing we can actually know. The relationship between things—that is what an explanation is.

You seem to be hunting for an explanation that accounts for everything. But how can we explain "everything" when we don't even know what "everything" is beyond the very phenomena we observe? Such explanations don't exist. Any explanation is inherently partial. Take the human being, for instance. A human is merely a complex, organized cluster of matter shaped by evolution.

Fine, but then what qualifies as actual knowledge of reality?

😕

So, an explanation is always incomplete; it merely "satisfies" certain practical needs... in the meantime...
The issue arises when people take these partial explanations and
accept them as absolute truths on a philosophy forum... much like you are doing right now...

A human is a complex and organized mass of matter resulting from evolution.

Yet, for both himself and the entirety of science, philosophy, and religion, man remains a complete mystery...
He doesn't truly know himself, does he? Just as he doesn't know reality. Because to know reality is to know oneself...
As we already established... we perceive and interpret reality... which means our reality is nothing more than perception and interpretation. To know reality is to KNOW THE PERCEPTION AND THE INTERPRETATION. Therefore, to know reality is to know oneself—to understand how, why, and in what way you perceive and interpret things.
It follows that knowing is synonymous with being. To truly know what a human is, you have to *be* human. You simply cannot know what you are not.👋

Taylor Alvarez6 said:An explanation is always incomplete, serving merely practical purposes... however...
the issue arises when these partial explanations are accepted and
treated as absolute truths on an academic philosophy forum... much like in your case...

whereas for both the individual and the broader disciplines of philosophy and religion, man remains an utter mystery...
one does not truly know oneself, nor does one know reality... because knowing reality requires knowing oneself...
as we already understand... we perceive and interpret reality... therefore our reality is perception and interpretation... to know reality is to KNOW PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION... which means, in effect, knowing oneself (how, why, and what one perceives and interprets)
Similarly... to know is to be... in order to know what a person is, one must be a person... one cannot know that which they are not...👋

Man is not a total mystery. We know certain things about ourselves. Don't we? And we know things about other matters as well. Thus, there is no claim here that we cannot know that which we are not.

You seem to believe that knowledge is something external to man that must be discovered—as if some absolute truth exists out there. Knowledge is intrinsic to the human being. Truth resides within us, not outside of us. For us, there is only our own reality: what we perceive. These are phenomena. Since perception itself is also a phenomenon, by studying perception, we only ever study our own reality. We will grasp nothing more.

I am not sure how to put this. Things-in-themselves—reality itself—are not realms where truth or knowledge exist. Knowledge and truth exist only in relation to "our reality," namely, things as they appear to us (phenomena).

Peter Jackson4 said:A person isn't a total mystery. We know certain things about ourselves. Right? And we know things about other things, too. So, the claim that we can't know what we aren't doesn't hold up.

You seem to think knowledge is something external that we need to uncover. As if some absolute truth exists out there. Knowledge is internal; it belongs to the individual. Truth resides within us, not outside. For us, there is only our own reality. What we perceive. Just phenomena. Even perception itself is a phenomenon. By studying perception, we are merely studying our own reality. There is nothing more to grasp.

I don't know how to put this. Things-in-themselves—true reality—don't contain truth or knowledge. Knowledge and truth only exist regarding "our reality," which is just things as they appear to us. These are phenomena.

Peter Jackson4... honestly... where on earth did you get the idea that I believe truth is external...🙂
just read what I wrote again...
perception isn't a phenomenon... and what can we actually know if we understand how and what we perceive, and how and what we interpret... that's for you to figure out...
we won't know anything more, and we don't need to... except for "our" reality... but the issue, as I noted, is that most people assume it's "mostly" understood... when in fact, they couldn't be further from the truth.
And really... "things-in-themselves don't contain truth"... rather, those "things-in-themselves" *are* the truth...
truth doesn't exist in, at, near, or between things... truth simply IS...
that's why truth can't be known any other way than through LIVING..
which is why you can't know what you aren't... go ahead, test it... then come back to me...
it seems we've stumbled into a serious debate over the definition of "knowledge." Perhaps knowledge should only count if it equates to power and control... say, if you have total mastery over yourself, you possess self-knowledge... if not... let's just call it self-ignorance.😉 👋

Honestly, I’m stoked that someone actually bothered to swing by my little corner of the internet and check out this thread.
Some people clearly caught my drift or at least gauged the level I was playing at.
Others? Not so much.
But whatever.
Relationships between phenomena? It feels like this illusion of "understanding" is all we really have, but it’s an understanding rooted in practice—that typical objectivist, scientific mindset. It reminds me of what Pascal once wrote: humans marvel at things that are rare, yet they take the everyday stuff for granted, even if they can't explain it to save their lives.
It’s just pure habit.
Once the world becomes a routine, people decide it’s been "explained."
But it seems philosophy moves in the opposite direction, using its own questions, rather than answers, to sketch out the world.

Arthur Grant4 said:What does it actually mean to explain a phenomenon? What’s the point of an explanation anyway?
What does "understanding" even look like?
Why did people look up at the stars and decide they were something more than just tiny glowing pebbles floating in space?
Why do we assume things aren't just what they appear to be? Where does this drive to demand an explanation even come from? And what defines an explanation? I think we're just running in circles here.

Look, kid, I can tell you're getting deep into this. If you really want answers, go hit up the library and grab some Hegelian phenomenology of spirit.
It’s all in there—the how, the why, all of it. You just have to read it carefully.

😉

gentleseal3, I’ve chewed through Hegel, Berkeley, Husserl, Kant, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and all the rest...
I don't know if you caught it, but there's basically nothing actually being said there.
If you think otherwise, fine... or maybe you just didn't get what I was asking.

Arthur Grant4 said:Why on earth did people look up at the stars and assume they were anything more than just tiny little glowing pebbles stuck in the sky?

Maybe because it’s the same logic as seeing a campfire flickering way off in the distance and thinking it’s some tiny, stray spark, only to realize once you actually get close that it’s a whole different beast. It’s pretty obvious they understood that things tend to look a hell of a lot bigger once you're standing right in front of them. I mean, what else would it be?

Arthur Grant4 said:What does it even mean to explain a phenomenon? What’s the actual point of an explanation?
What does it truly mean to understand something?
Why did people look up at the stars and assume they were something much greater than just tiny little glowing pebbles floating in the sky?
Why do we fall into the trap of thinking things aren't always what they seem? Where does this nagging urge to demand an explanation even come from? And then there's the big question: what *is* an explanation? I think I just went in a complete circle here.

Man is merely dreaming, Afriend's students.
But once he WAKES UP, he understands everything instantly, without any effort at all.👋

Arthur Grant4 said:there's basically nothing written there at all.

🤣 😂

Man, I am just so incredibly glad this forum exists, because honestly, there's actually some substance here 🤣

Anyway, Ashibad 🙏 🙏

ahem... okay, so I guess the answer to all these questions is pretty straightforward... it's just about observation... and drawing conclusions... which, honestly, might be totally wrong, but hey, we basically just bend the truth to fit how we see things, right? So that's that. And if you look at it from a global perspective, this whole "phenomenon" thing is super subjective... at least in my book. Like, to some guy out in the middle of nowhere who’s never even seen a smartphone, that's a phenomenon. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit there, but you get what I mean. To someone who doesn't understand why a plant's structure works the way it does—like, who actually decided everything inside a plant should be arranged exactly like that?—well, to them, it's a phenomenon. But they still find it amazing, I guess. To me, though, as someone who kind of gets it, it's just... well, a plant. It's the same with those giant faces carved into mountains, or crop circles, or someone suddenly recovering from a bad bout of something, or waking up from a coma... to everyone else, those are massive phenomena. But really, it's all so simple it actually makes my head hurt... at least for someone else. Maybe someone looking down on us from above, laughing at our cluelessness... figuratively speaking, of course. You guys wrote that man is a phenomenon. And yeah... he is. But why do we think that? That's where the real mystery lies, but it's only a mystery for us. Man, I'm already getting lost in my own thoughts here... my head is spinning. Why do you even ask these kinds of questions anyway? Can't you just live normally with your own thoughts? I mean, humans have been walking around for like 10,000 years just existing without knowing why, so why would we suddenly need to uncover everything now? Just live... enjoy yourself... don't stress too much... and maybe try using words that the average person can actually follow!!!