Does critical realism need the concept of three domains of reality? A roundtable

Journal of Critical Realism 22 (2):222-239 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The concept of the three domains of reality is widely used in empirical critical realist research. However, there has been little scrutiny of how the domains are conceptualized and what they contribute to critical realism and how they should be applied in empirical research. This paper involves four arguments. First, Tom Fryer and Cristián Navarrete argue that the three domains of reality are redundant, confusing, and unsupported by Bhaskar’s theorizing. Second, Dave Elder-Vass argues that the three domains schema embodies a distinction between the actual and the non-actual real. Regardless of whether we call them domains we need to retain this distinction. Third, Tobin Nellhaus argues that there are several reasons to uphold the three domains, but ‘the empirical’ is flawed and must be enfolded within a more encompassing theory. Fourth, Ruth Groff argues that the metaphor of ontological stratification is a problem when readers take it literally, often misconstruing the actual metaphysical content that it is meant to capture.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,795

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The ‘three domains of reality’: do we need them? A reply.Priscilla Alderson - 2023 - Journal of Critical Realism 22 (5):924-927.
Mind the gap!: An exercise in concrete universality.Iskra Nunez - 2012 - International Journal of Žižek Studies 6 (3).

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-03-14

Downloads
41 (#552,696)

6 months
11 (#364,844)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles