The Role of "interpretation" and "explanation" in humanities

 Explanatory and interpretationism are two major currents in the humanities that have created many differences among the philosophers of the humanities. This issue has been expressed with different phrases such as “cause and reason”, “cause analysis and meaning analysis”, “law-oriented and rule-oriented”, and the like. Various readings of the position and relationship of these two have been presented in humanities. The main issue of this article is whether these two functions are conflicting? Or two independent functions? Or that one can be delivered to another? In other words, is the acceptance of explanation in the humanities associated with the denial of interpretation, and conversely, the defense of interpretation is associated with the denial of explanation? Or do we need both to have a realistic understanding of human actions? In this article, with the analytical and philosophical method, while criticizing the three views of "objectivity of interpretation and explanation", "explanation instead of interpretation" and "interpretation instead of explanation", from the idea of the necessity of both functions to discover the truth and access to reality in the studies of human actions. We have defended And we have shown that none of these two can make us unnecessary of the other.