Introduction: The Temptation of Going Deeper
When faced with a puzzling phenomenon, our first instinct is often to seek a deeper cause. We ask "why" until we reach the furthest back point available: history, mechanism, or prior events. Intuition tells us that deeper explanations are better explanations.
But depth is not synonymous with understanding. This post examines the distinction between causal depth and present intelligibility, a distinction crucial for avoiding habitual explanatory errors.
1. Causal Depth: Tracing the Chain
Causal depth tracks sequences and dependencies:
This occurred because that occurred.
That occurred because something earlier occurred.
And so on.
Causal tracing illuminates conditions and constraints. It shows how a phenomenon could arise in a linear or branching sequence. It identifies enabling factors and vulnerabilities.
Yet causal depth alone does not tell us what the phenomenon is in the present. Knowing the chain of events is not the same as understanding the structure, significance, or intelligibility of what emerges.
2. Present Intelligibility: Understanding What Is
Present intelligibility concerns the relational structure of a phenomenon as it is now:
What makes it recognisable?
What distinctions does it presuppose?
How does it function within its current context?
This kind of understanding is not a matter of looking backward. It is about clarifying what conditions and relations sustain the phenomenon in the present. It allows us to engage with it meaningfully, not just recount its history.
3. Why Depth Misleads
When causal depth is treated as sufficient for explanation, several misfires occur:
The phenomenon is reduced to its antecedents rather than its present relations.
Historical or mechanistic detail feels authoritative, masking gaps in intelligibility.
Depth is mistaken for insight; thorough tracing substitutes for relational clarity.
In other words, causal depth seduces by offering a story, not an understanding.
4. Orienting Without Closing
A relational approach insists that explanation should allow re-entry:
Understanding must be open to the phenomenon’s ongoing relations.
Depth should inform orientation, not terminate inquiry.
Present intelligibility is the criterion that prevents the habitual slide from “how it came to be” to “what it is.”
Depth becomes a resource for understanding, not a claim of completion.
5. Preparing for the Next Step
Recognising the distinction between causal depth and present intelligibility equips us to evaluate explanations deliberately rather than habitually. It is a guardrail against the instinct to equate thoroughness with comprehension.
In the next post, we will explore Orientation Over Closure, showing how explanation can guide understanding without foreclosing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment