Realism

What is Realism?

Realism, in its broadest philosophical sense, is that reality exists independently of the mind. This means that the objects, properties, or facts in question—ranging from everyday physical objects like tables and chairs to abstract entities like numbers or moral values—have an existence that is not contingent upon being known, perceived, thought of, or conceptualized by any conscious being.

This core assertion of mind-independent existence places realism in direct opposition to various forms of idealism, which generally posit that reality is fundamentally mental or that its existence is dependent on consciousness, and also contrasts with anti-realist stances that might deny the existence of certain entities altogether or argue that their truth is mind-dependent.

The term “realism” is not a monolithic doctrine but rather a stance that can be adopted towards many different subject matters. One can be a realist about the external physical world, scientific theories, mathematical objects, moral facts, or universals, among other things.

What unifies these various realisms is the commitment to the idea that the entities or truths within that specific domain are not mere constructs of human minds or social conventions but possess an objective status.

Consequently, realists often maintain that truth consists in a correspondence between our cognitive representations (beliefs, theories) and this independent reality. While acknowledging that our current understanding may be imperfect, realists typically believe that the accuracy and completeness of our knowledge can be improved over time.

Philosophical realism often aligns with a common-sense view of the world, particularly when it comes to the existence of macroscopic physical objects.

The belief that the world we perceive through our senses is largely as it appears and exists, whether or not we are perceiving it, is a foundational intuition that many forms of realism seek to defend and elaborate upon. However, philosophical realism extends beyond this everyday understanding to address more abstract and complex domains, leading to a wide spectrum of realist positions, each with its specific arguments and nuances.

A. Core Principles: Existence and Independence

The foundational tenets of philosophical realism revolve around two central claims: existence and independence.

1. The Existence Claim: Realism asserts that certain entities, whether they be physical objects, abstract concepts, properties, or values, genuinely exist. A realist about the external world would affirm the existence of tables, rocks, and celestial bodies.
2. The Independence Claim: Crucially, realism posits that the existence and nature of these entities are independent of human minds. This means they are not dependent on anyone’s beliefs, thoughts, perceptions, linguistic practices, or conceptual schemes for their being. While mundane empirical dependencies are acknowledged (e.g., a table’s design depends on a human artisan), realism denies any deeper, philosophically significant dependence on mental activity for the fundamental existence or properties of the entities in question.

This “mind-independence” is the hallmark of realism and distinguishes it from various forms of idealism, which argue that reality is in some sense mental or dependent on consciousness for its existence.

Realism, therefore, champions the idea of an objective reality that our thoughts and theories aim to describe and understand, rather than create or constitute.

B. Contrast with Idealism and Anti-Realism

Realism is often defined in contrast to idealism and other forms of anti-realism.

• Idealism: Idealism generally asserts the primacy of mind or ideas, suggesting that reality is either fundamentally mental or that its existence is contingent upon being perceived or conceived. Realism directly opposes this by affirming a reality that subsists independently of mental processes. For example, while an idealist like Berkeley might claim that “to be is to be perceived” (esse est percipi), a realist would argue that objects continue to exist and possess their properties even when no mind is perceiving them.

• Anti-Realism: This is a broader term that encompasses various positions challenging realism concerning a particular domain. Anti-realism might deny the existence of certain entities (as an error theorist might about moral facts) or argue that the truth of statements in a domain is mind-dependent (as a constructivist might about mathematical objects). Idealism can be considered a form of anti-realism concerning the material world, as it typically denies its mind-independent existence. Scientific anti-realism, for instance, might argue that scientific theories are merely useful instruments for prediction and explanation rather than true descriptions of an unobservable reality.

Realists generally believe that statements about the world are “truth-apt,” meaning they can be objectively true or false based on how that mind-independent reality is constituted. Idealists may also agree that statements are truth-apt but would argue that the reality making them true is itself mental. The core divergence lies in the assertion of a reality that stands apart from, and is not reducible to, mental phenomena or human cognitive frameworks.

History of Realism

The philosophical stance of realism, asserting the mind-independent existence of certain entities, has a long and varied history, with its roots in ancient philosophy and evolving through various interpretations and debates up to the contemporary era.

A. Ancient Roots: Platonic and Aristotelian Realism

The origins of realist thought in Western philosophy are prominently found in ancient Greece, particularly in the works of Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE).

• Platonic Realism (or Exaggerated Realism): Plato is famous for his Theory of Forms (or Ideas), which is a radical form of realism concerning abstract objects, especially universals. Plato argued that universals—such as “redness,” “beauty,” or “justice”—are not mere names or concepts in the mind, but are real, eternal, and unchanging Forms that exist in a separate, intelligible realm, independent of the particular physical things we perceive through our senses. Physical objects are considered mere imperfect “shadows” or copies of these perfect Forms. True knowledge, for Plato, is achieved through reason’s apprehension of these Forms, not through fallible sensory experience. This view is often termed “exaggerated realism” because it posits a separate, transcendent existence for universals.
• Aristotelian Realism (or Moderate Realism): Aristotle, Plato’s student, also held a realist view about universals, but his was a more “moderate” form. Unlike Plato, Aristotle did not believe that Forms existed in a separate, transcendent realm. Instead, he argued that universals (or “forms” in his terminology) exist in particular things (in re) as their essential properties. For Aristotle, the form of “dogness” exists only insofar as it is instantiated in individual dogs; it does not exist separately from them. While aiming at the universal, Aristotle’s philosophy grounded reality more firmly in the concrete, observable world. Knowledge, for Aristotle, begins with empirical observation of particulars, from which the mind can abstract the universal forms.

These ancient Greek philosophers laid the groundwork for many subsequent debates about the nature of reality, universals, and knowledge, establishing realism as a significant philosophical tradition.

B. Medieval Realism and the Problem of Universals

During the Middle Ages, the debate over universals, inherited from Plato and Aristotle, became a central philosophical issue, with realism being a prominent position.

• Scholastic Realism: Medieval scholastic philosophers engaged deeply with the question of whether universals (like “humanity” or “redness”) have a real, objective existence or are merely names (nominalism) or concepts in the mind (conceptualism).

• Exaggerated Realism, following Plato, held that universals exist independently and before particular things (ante res).
• Moderate Realism, following Aristotle, contended that universals exist in particular things (in re) as their shared essences, but not separately from them. Thinkers like Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) adopted a form of moderate realism, integrating Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology. They argued that universals are real, grounded in the essences of things created by God, and are knowable through abstraction from experience.

The medieval debates on universals were crucial for shaping epistemological and metaphysical thought, and the realist positions developed during this time continued to influence later philosophy.

C. Early Modern and Scottish Common Sense Realism

In the early modern period, realism faced challenges from emerging idealist and skeptical philosophies. However, realist counter-currents also developed.

• René Descartes (1596-1650), often considered the father of modern philosophy, is sometimes regarded as a progenitor of modern realism due to his affirmation of the independent existence of the external world (material substance), distinct from the thinking mind (mental substance). However, his method of doubt and the “representationalist” theory of perception (that we know external objects indirectly through mental representations or ideas) also paved the way for idealist critiques.
• John Locke (1632-1704), an empiricist, also contributed to realist thought, particularly with his distinction between primary qualities (inherent in objects, like solidity and extension) and secondary qualities (powers in objects to produce sensations in us, like color and taste). While a realist about the existence of an external material world, his representationalist theory of perception (that ideas are intermediaries between the mind and the world) also faced idealist challenges, notably from Berkeley.
• Scottish Common Sense Realism: Emerging in the 18th century, this school of thought, championed by philosophers like Thomas Reid (1710-1796), sought to defend naive realism against the skepticism of philosophers like David Hume and the idealism of Berkeley. Reid argued that common-sense beliefs—such as the existence of an external world, the reliability of our senses, and the existence of other minds—are foundational and intuitively certain. He criticized the “theory of ideas” (representationalism) that had become dominant, arguing for a direct perception of external objects. This movement emphasized that ordinary experiences assure the existence of the self and real objects that can be seen and felt.

D. New Realism and Critical Realism

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, new forms of realism emerged, partly in reaction to the dominance of idealism.

• New Realism: This movement, prominent in the early 20th century, particularly in Britain and America with figures like William Pepperell Montague and Ralph Barton Perry, argued for a direct acquaintance with independently existing objects. New Realists rejected the idealist notion that the world is mental and sought to emancipate metaphysics from epistemology, meaning that the process of knowing (a mental operation) does not imply that the known world is itself mental. They held that the same independent world can be directly presented to consciousness, not merely represented by ideas. Some new realists even suggested that consciousness is not localized in the skull but is “out there” where the objects of perception are.
• Critical Realism: Arising partly as a critique of New Realism, Critical Realism also affirmed the existence of a mind-independent physical world but reintroduced a distinction between the object itself and the sense-data through which it is perceived. Unlike naive direct realism, critical realists acknowledged the role of mental processes in perception and the possibility of error, but maintained that sense-data could provide knowledge of the external world. Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, sometimes referred to as critical realism, posits that our understanding of reality is always provisional and subject to revision, but that science aims at objective truth about a mind-independent world.

These later developments show realism adapting to new philosophical challenges, particularly those posed by advances in science and a deeper understanding of the complexities of perception and knowledge.

III. Pillars of Realist Thought: Key Philosophers and Their Doctrines

The edifice of realist philosophy is built upon the contributions of numerous thinkers who have articulated and defended the mind-independent existence of various kinds of entities. Examining their core doctrines reveals the diversity and evolution of realist thought.

A. Plato: Realism and the World of Forms

Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) is a foundational figure for a specific and highly influential type of realism known as Platonic Realism or “exaggerated realism”. His central doctrine is the Theory of Forms (or Ideas), which posits that the highest and most fundamental reality consists of abstract, eternal, and unchanging entities called Forms. These Forms—such as Justice, Beauty, Goodness, and mathematical concepts like the perfect Circle—exist in an intelligible realm, separate from the physical world we perceive through our senses. The physical world, according to Plato, is a transient and imperfect reflection or “shadow” of these true Forms.

• Mind-Independence of Forms: Crucially, these Forms are not mental constructs; they exist objectively and independently of human minds and even of the physical world itself. They are the true objects of knowledge, apprehended by reason and intellect, not by the fallible senses.
• Universals as Real Entities: Platonic realism is primarily a realism about universals. It asserts that terms or properties that can be applied to many things (e.g., “dogness” applying to all dogs) refer to these real, independently existing Forms.
• Epistemological Implications: True knowledge, for Plato, is knowledge of these Forms. The human soul, in his view, had acquaintance with the Forms before its embodiment and can “recollect” them through philosophical inquiry.

Plato’s realism about Forms provided a powerful framework for understanding abstract concepts and served as a cornerstone for much of Western metaphysical and epistemological thought, establishing a strong tradition of realism regarding abstract entities.

B. Aristotle: Moderate Realism and Immanent Forms

Aristotle (384–322 BCE), while a student of Plato, developed a distinct form of realism, often termed “moderate realism”. He agreed with Plato that universals (or “forms” in his terminology) are real and are the objects of knowledge, but he disagreed about their mode of existence.

• Forms as Immanent: Unlike Plato, Aristotle did not believe that forms existed in a separate, transcendent realm. Instead, he argued that forms are immanent, meaning they exist
  within the particular physical objects that instantiate them. The form of “dogness,” for example, is found in each individual dog and is what makes it a dog. It does not exist as a separate, ideal Dog apart from actual dogs.
• Substance as a Composite of Form and Matter: For Aristotle, individual substances (e.g., a particular tree, a particular human) are composites of matter (the physical stuff) and form (the essence or what-it-is-to-be that thing). The form is the universal aspect, but it only has actual existence when embodied in matter.
• Knowledge through Abstraction: Knowledge of these immanent forms is gained through empirical observation of particular things, from which the intellect abstracts the universal essence.

Aristotle’s moderate realism provided an alternative to Plato’s transcendent realism, grounding universals in the observable world and heavily influencing subsequent scholastic philosophy and scientific thought.

C. Thomas Aquinas: Scholastic Realism

Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) was a towering figure in medieval scholastic philosophy who synthesized Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology. He adopted a form of moderate realism regarding universals.

• Universals Grounded in Divine Ideas and Things: Aquinas held that universals exist in three ways:

1. Ante rem (before the thing): as archetypal ideas in the mind of God, according to which He created the world.
2. In re (in the thing): as the common essences or natures existing in particular individuals, knowable through abstraction. This aligns with Aristotelian immanent realism.
3. Post rem (after the thing): as concepts formed in the human mind through abstraction from experience.

• Knowledge from Experience: Aquinas, following Aristotle, emphasized that human knowledge originates in sensory experience. The intellect then abstracts the universal forms or essences from the particular things perceived by the senses.

Aquinas’s sophisticated realism became a dominant philosophical view within the Christian West for centuries and continues to be influential in Thomistic philosophy.

D. John Locke: Representative Realism

John Locke (1632–1704) was an early modern empiricist philosopher who is often associated with “representative realism” (also known as indirect realism or the “theory of ideas”).

• Mind-Independent External World: Locke was a realist in that he believed in the existence of an external, material world that exists independently of our minds.
• Ideas as Intermediaries: However, he argued that we do not perceive this external world directly. Instead, the mind directly perceives only its own “ideas” (sensations, mental images), which are caused by, and are representations of, external objects.
• Primary and Secondary Qualities: Locke famously distinguished between primary qualities (such as solidity, extension, figure, motion/rest, and number), which he believed are inseparable from material objects themselves and resemble our ideas of them, and secondary qualities (such as colors, sounds, tastes), which are powers in objects to produce various sensations in us but do not resemble anything in the objects themselves.

Locke’s representative realism, while affirming an independent external world, introduced the “veil of perception” problem: if we only ever directly perceive our own ideas, how can we be sure that these ideas accurately represent the external world, or even that an external world exists at all? This opened the door for idealist critiques, most notably from George Berkeley.

E. Thomas Reid: Common Sense Realism (Direct Realism)

Thomas Reid (1710–1796) was the leading figure of the Scottish Common Sense Realism school, which emerged as a response to the skepticism of David Hume and the idealism of George Berkeley.

• Direct Perception of External Objects: Reid strongly opposed the “theory of ideas” (representationalism) advocated by Locke and others. He argued for direct realism, the view that we perceive external objects directly, not through the medium of intervening mental representations.
• Primacy of Common Sense Beliefs: Reid contended that certain beliefs are principles of “common sense”—they are self-evident, universally held by sane individuals, and necessary for the conduct of life. These include belief in the existence of an external material world, the existence of our own minds and personal identity, the reliability of our senses and memory (within limits), and the existence of other minds.
• Critique of Skepticism and Idealism: Reid believed that the philosophical systems leading to skepticism (Hume) or idealism (Berkeley) were based on the flawed premise of representationalism. By rejecting this premise and appealing to common sense, he sought to restore confidence in our natural cognitive faculties and our ability to know the world.

Reid’s direct realism offered a robust defense of a common-sense understanding of perception and reality against prevailing philosophical trends.

F. G.E. Moore: Defense of Common Sense

George Edward Moore (1873–1958) was an influential British philosopher in the early 20th century who, like Reid, famously defended common sense beliefs against skepticism and idealism.

• “Proof of an External World”: In his famous lecture and paper, Moore offered a “proof” of the external world by holding up his two hands and saying, “Here is one hand,” and “Here is another.” He argued that this constituted a perfectly rigorous proof of the existence of external objects, as the premises were known with certainty and the conclusion followed from them.
• Certainty of Common Sense Propositions: Moore maintained that we know with certainty many common sense propositions (e.g., “The earth has existed for many years past,” “I am a human being”). He argued that any philosophical argument attempting to deny these propositions would inevitably rely on premises less certain than the common sense beliefs themselves.
• Critique of Idealism: Moore was a staunch critic of the forms of idealism (particularly British Absolute Idealism) that were dominant in his time. He argued that idealist claims (e.g., that time is unreal) were often obscure and ran contrary to undeniable common sense truths.

Moore’s defense of common sense, while not a fully developed metaphysical system of realism in itself, provided powerful arguments against anti-realist positions and helped to shift the philosophical climate towards realism in the analytic tradition.

G. Karl Popper: Critical Realism

Karl Popper (1902–1994), primarily known for his philosophy of science, advocated a form of “critical realism”.

• Mind-Independent Reality as a Presupposition of Science: Popper believed that science aims to describe and explain a mind-independent reality. The pursuit of objective truth is a core goal of scientific inquiry.
• Fallibilism: A key aspect of Popper’s philosophy is fallibilism—the view that all our knowledge claims, including scientific theories, are conjectural and potentially mistaken. We can never achieve absolute certainty.
• Approximate Truth (Verisimilitude): Despite fallibilism, Popper believed that scientific theories can get progressively closer to the truth. Science progresses by proposing bold conjectures (theories) and then subjecting them to rigorous attempts at falsification through empirical testing. Theories that survive such tests are corroborated and provisionally accepted as the best available approximations of reality.
• Rejection of Inductivism and Justificationism: Popper rejected the idea that scientific theories are derived from observation by induction or that they can be positively justified or proven true. Instead, science proceeds via conjecture and refutation.

Popper’s critical realism combines a realist commitment to the objective truth about a mind-independent world with a keen awareness of the limits and fallibility of human knowledge.

The following table provides a concise overview of these key realist philosophers and their central doctrines:

Table 1: Key Realist Philosophers and Their Core Tenets

Philosopher	Dates	Key Realist Doctrine	Core Tenets/Concepts
Plato	c. 428–348 BCE	Platonic Realism (Forms)	Transcendent realm of perfect, eternal Forms; physical world as shadow; universals exist independently.
Aristotle	384–322 BCE	Moderate Realism	Forms/universals exist immanently within particular objects; substance as form-matter composite; knowledge via abstraction from experience.
Thomas Aquinas	c. 1225–1274	Scholastic Realism	Universals exist in God’s mind, in things, and as concepts in human minds; knowledge from experience via abstraction.
John Locke	1632–1704	Representative Realism	Mind-independent external world; perception mediated by ideas representing objects; primary vs. secondary qualities.
Thomas Reid	1710–1796	Common Sense Realism	Direct perception of external objects; certainty of common sense beliefs (e.g., external world, other minds).
G.E. Moore	1873–1958	Defense of Common Sense	Certainty of common sense propositions (“Here is one hand”); critique of skepticism and idealism based on common sense.
Karl Popper	1902–1994	Critical Realism	Science aims at objective truth about a mind-independent world; fallibilism; progress via conjecture and refutation; theories as approximations.

IV. Varieties of Realism: A Spectrum of Thought

Realism is not a single doctrine but a stance that can be adopted across various philosophical domains, leading to a spectrum of realist positions. These can be categorized based on the objects of their realist commitment (e.g., universals, physical world, scientific entities, moral facts) and the nature of the realism asserted (e.g., direct, indirect, critical).

A. Platonic Realism (Realism about Universals)

As discussed (Section III.A), Platonic Realism, also known as “exaggerated realism,” is primarily a position concerning the ontological status of universals—properties or concepts like “redness,” “justice,” or “triangularity” that can be predicated of many particular things.

• Core Claim: Platonic realism asserts that these universals (Forms or Ideas) exist objectively, eternally, and immutably in a transcendent realm, independent of both the physical world and human minds. Particular things in the sensible world are considered imperfect instantiations or “shadows” of these perfect Forms.
• Significance: This view provides an account for objective knowledge (e.g., in mathematics and ethics) by grounding it in these mind-independent Forms. It addresses how different particulars can share a common property—they all “participate” in the same Form.

B. Aristotelian Realism (Moderate Realism about Universals)

Aristotelian Realism, or “moderate realism,” also addresses the status of universals but offers a different account from Plato (Section III.B).

• Core Claim: Moderate realism holds that universals are real but exist in re (in things) rather than in a separate transcendent realm. The universal “humanity,” for example, exists only insofar as it is instantiated in individual human beings; it does not exist independently of them.
• Immanence: Universals are the immanent forms or essences of particular things. Knowledge of these universals is typically gained through abstraction from sensory experience of particulars.

C. Scientific Realism

Scientific Realism is a position within the philosophy of science concerning the status of scientific theories and the entities they posit.

• Core Claim: Scientific realists typically hold that our best scientific theories give us (approximately) true descriptions of the world, including its unobservable aspects. They believe that the unobservable entities postulated by these theories (e.g., electrons, quarks, gravitational fields) genuinely exist, and that science makes progress by getting closer to the truth about this mind-independent reality.
• Arguments: A key argument for scientific realism is the “no-miracles argument,” which suggests that the empirical success of scientific theories (especially their ability to make novel predictions) would be a miracle if they were not at least approximately true representations of reality.
• Varieties: There are different strengths and versions of scientific realism, but the common thread is a commitment to the idea that science can and does provide genuine knowledge about the objective structure of the world.

D. Moral Realism

Moral Realism is a meta-ethical view concerning the nature of moral judgments and properties.

• Core Claim: Moral realists assert that there are objective moral facts or truths that exist independently of human opinions, beliefs, attitudes, or cultural conventions. Moral statements (e.g., “Torturing innocent beings for fun is wrong”) are truth-apt and can be objectively true or false depending on these mind-independent moral facts.
• Contrast with Anti-Realism: This contrasts with moral anti-realist views such as subjectivism (moral truths are relative to individual attitudes), relativism (moral truths are relative to cultural norms), or non-cognitivism (moral statements do not express propositions but rather emotions or commands).
• Varieties: Moral realism itself has different forms, such as ethical naturalism (moral facts are reducible to natural facts) and ethical non-naturalism (moral facts are sui generis and not reducible to natural facts).

E. Perceptual Realism (Direct and Indirect/Critical)

Perceptual Realism concerns the relationship between our sensory experiences and the external physical world.

• Core Claim: Perceptual realists believe that there is an external physical world that exists independently of our perception of it, and that our senses provide us with information about this world.
• Direct Realism (Naive Realism): This view, often associated with common sense, holds that we perceive external objects and their properties directly, as they are, without the mediation of mental representations. What we see, touch, and hear are the objects themselves. Scottish Common Sense Realism is a historical proponent of this view.
• Indirect Realism (Representative Realism / Critical Realism): This view also affirms a mind-independent external world but posits that we perceive it indirectly, through the medium of mental representations (sense-data, ideas, percepts) that are caused by external objects. John Locke is a key historical figure for representative realism. Critical realism is a more nuanced version that acknowledges the constructive role of the mind in perception and the possibility of error, while still maintaining that perception can yield knowledge of the external world.

F. New Realism

New Realism was an early 20th-century philosophical movement that emerged as a reaction against idealism.

• Core Claim: New realists argued for the direct presentation of mind-independent objects to consciousness. They sought to “emancipate metaphysics from epistemology,” meaning that the fact that we know things through mental processes does not imply that the things known are themselves mental. They asserted that the world exists independently of our knowing it.
• Rejection of Representationalism: Like direct realists, they often rejected the idea that mental intermediaries stand between the knower and the known object.

These varieties illustrate that realism is a broad church, with specific realist theses being advanced and defended across diverse areas of philosophical inquiry, each tailored to the particular nature of the entities or truths under consideration.

V. The Case for Realism: Core Arguments and Justifications

Realism, in its various forms, is supported by a range of arguments that aim to establish the existence and mind-independence of certain entities or truths. These arguments often appeal to common sense, the success of scientific practice, or the perceived inadequacies of anti-realist alternatives.

A. Arguments from Common Sense

Many forms of realism, particularly those concerning the existence of the external physical world and everyday objects, draw heavily on common sense intuitions.

• Intuitive Plausibility: The belief that the world we interact with—tables, chairs, other people—exists independently of our perceiving it is a deeply ingrained and seemingly self-evident aspect of ordinary experience. Philosophers like Thomas Reid and G.E. Moore championed this common-sense perspective, arguing that such fundamental beliefs are more certain than the philosophical premises used to doubt them. Moore’s famous “proof of an external world” by holding up his hands is a direct appeal to the immediate certainty of common-sense experience over complex skeptical arguments.
• Practical Necessity: Our daily actions and interactions presuppose a stable, shared, and mind-independent world. We navigate our environment, communicate with others, and make plans based on the assumption that the world operates with a degree of objectivity and predictability that would be difficult to explain if it were merely a mental construct or entirely mind-dependent. Contemporary defenses of Common Sense Realism continue to argue for the logical necessity of reality for intentional choice and the dependence of consciousness on prior reality.

B. The “No-Miracles” Argument for Scientific Realism

One of the most influential arguments for scientific realism is the “no-miracles” argument (NMA), also known as the “ultimate argument”.

• Core Idea: The NMA asserts that the remarkable predictive and explanatory success of our best scientific theories would be a miracle—an extraordinary coincidence—if these theories were not at least approximately true descriptions of a mind-independent reality, and if the entities they posit (like electrons or genes) did not genuinely exist.
• Success as Evidence for Truth: Proponents argue that the ability of theories to make novel, accurate predictions about unobserved phenomena is strong evidence that they have latched onto the actual structure of the world. Realism, they contend, is the best, or only, philosophical stance that does not make the success of science an inexplicable mystery.

C. Explanatory Power and Coherence

Realism is often defended on the grounds that it provides a more coherent and explanatorily powerful account of various phenomena compared to anti-realist alternatives.

• Explaining Agreement and Disagreement: Realism about a certain domain (e.g., moral facts or scientific truths) can explain how individuals can converge on similar beliefs or engage in meaningful disagreement. If there is an objective reality to be discovered, then inquiry and debate can be seen as attempts to accurately represent that reality.
• Making Sense of Error: Realism allows for the possibility of error. Our beliefs or theories can be mistaken precisely because there is an independent reality that they fail to accurately capture. This contrasts with some forms of anti-realism where the notion of objective error might be harder to sustain.
• Independence of Universals (Platonic/Aristotelian Arguments): Arguments for realism about universals, as advanced by Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain how different particular things can share common properties or how abstract concepts (like mathematical truths) can have objective validity. They argued that such phenomena are best explained by positing the real existence of these universals, either in a transcendent realm or immanently within things.

D. Arguments Against Anti-Realist Alternatives

Part of the case for realism often involves critiquing the perceived weaknesses or implausible consequences of anti-realist positions.

• Avoiding Solipsism: Realism about the external world is seen as a way to avoid solipsism (the view that only one’s own mind is sure to exist), a problem that can arise for some forms of subjective idealism.
• Addressing Subjectivity/Relativism: In domains like morality or science, realism is often presented as an antidote to radical subjectivism or relativism, which some find unpalatable or unable to account for the apparent objectivity in these areas.
• Critique of Idealist Premises: Realists often challenge the core premises of idealism, such as the idea that we only ever directly perceive our own mental states, or that the concept of a mind-independent object is incoherent.

These arguments, while not universally accepted and subject to various counter-arguments, form the bedrock of the realist case across different philosophical domains, emphasizing realism’s alignment with common sense, its ability to explain the success of inquiry, and its capacity to provide a coherent framework for understanding the relationship between mind and world.

VI. Challenges and Critiques: Addressing Objections to Realism

Despite its intuitive appeal and explanatory power in certain domains, realism faces a variety of significant challenges and criticisms. These objections vary depending on the specific type of realism in question.

A. Epistemological Challenges: The Problem of Access

A fundamental challenge for many forms of realism is epistemological: if reality is truly mind-independent, how can we gain reliable knowledge of it?

• The Veil of Perception: For indirect or representative realism (like Locke’s), the assertion that we only directly perceive our own mental representations (ideas, sense-data) raises the “veil of perception” problem. If our access to the external world is always mediated by these mental entities, how can we be certain that they accurately represent that world, or even that such an external world exists at all? This line of reasoning was famously exploited by idealists like Berkeley.
• Skepticism: The gap between mind-independent reality and our cognitive faculties can lead to skepticism. If we cannot directly compare our beliefs or experiences with mind-independent reality itself, how can we justify our claims to know it? Anti-realists often leverage these skeptical arguments. Direct realism itself faces challenges from perceptual variation, illusions, and hallucinations, which suggest that what we perceive is not always the object or its properties as they are mind-independently.

B. Challenges to Scientific Realism

Scientific realism, despite the “no-miracles” argument, faces several potent objections:

• The Pessimistic Meta-Induction (PMI): This argument, prominently articulated by Larry Laudan, points to the history of science, which is littered with empirically successful theories that were later found to be false and whose central theoretical terms did not refer to anything real (e.g., the phlogiston theory of combustion, the caloric theory of heat). If so many past successful theories turned out to be false, the PMI argues, we have no good reason to believe that our current successful theories are true or that their unobservable entities exist.
• Underdetermination of Theory by Evidence: Critics argue that for any given body of empirical evidence, there can be multiple, mutually incompatible theories that are equally well-supported by that evidence (empirical equivalence). If this is the case, then empirical evidence alone cannot give us sufficient reason to believe that one particular theory is true and the others false, thus undermining the realist claim that our best theories are true descriptions of reality.
• Problems with “Approximate Truth”: The realist claim that successful theories are “approximately true” has been criticized for being vague and difficult to define precisely. What does it mean for a theory that posits non-existent entities to be “approximately true”?

C. Arguments from Conceptual Schemes and Relativism

Some anti-realist arguments challenge the notion of a single, objective, mind-independent reality by emphasizing the role of conceptual schemes, language, or cultural perspectives in shaping our understanding of the world.

• Conceptual Relativism: This view suggests that what counts as real or true is relative to a particular conceptual framework or language. If different frameworks are incommensurable, then the idea of a single, framework-independent reality that all frameworks aim to describe becomes problematic. Anti-realists may argue that there isn’t one single interpretation of a domain that holds true prior to thought, but rather that interpretations are speaker-dependent.
• The “Duck-Rabbit” Analogy: Anti-realists might use analogies like the duck-rabbit illusion to suggest that while a domain may have “structure,” its interpretation is not fixed or singular. Different perspectives can yield different, equally valid, “realities” from the same underlying data.

D. The Problem of Abstract Objects (for Platonic Realism)

Platonic realism, which posits a transcendent realm of abstract Forms, faces specific objections:

• Epistemological Access (The “Third Realm” Problem): If Forms exist in a non-spatiotemporal realm, causally isolated from the physical world, how can human minds, which are part of the physical world, come to know them? This is often called the problem of “epistemic access” to a “third realm”.
• Ontological Extravagance (Ockham’s Razor): Critics argue that positing an entire realm of abstract entities is ontologically extravagant and unnecessary. If phenomena like shared properties or mathematical truth can be explained without recourse to such a realm (e.g., through nominalism or conceptualism), then, by Ockham’s Razor, the simpler explanation is preferable.

E. Challenges from Quantum Mechanics

The development of quantum mechanics has posed particular challenges to classical realist intuitions about the physical world.

• Observer Effect and Measurement Problem: Phenomena like the observer effect, where the act of measurement seems to influence the state of a quantum system, and the measurement problem (how and why wave function collapse occurs) have led some to question the mind-independent existence of definite properties before measurement. Some interpretations suggest that reality might be created by or dependent on the mind.
• Rejection of Local Realism: Bell’s theorem and subsequent experiments have shown that “local realism”—the view that physical objects have definite, pre-existing local properties that are independent of observation and that influences cannot travel faster than light—is incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. This has forced a re-evaluation of what “realism” can mean at the quantum level.
• Counterfactual Definiteness: In quantum mechanics, realism is sometimes rigorously defined as “counterfactual definiteness”—the idea that an observable has a well-defined value even before it is measured. Quantum mechanics challenges this notion for certain properties, suggesting that properties might be defined randomly upon measurement rather than pre-existing.

These challenges highlight the ongoing debates surrounding realism. Realists have developed various responses to these objections, leading to more nuanced and sophisticated versions of realist theories. The dialogue between realism and its critics continues to be a vibrant area of philosophical inquiry.

VII. Realism in Dialogue: Contrasts with Idealism and Materialism

Understanding realism is further illuminated by contrasting it with its primary philosophical counterparts, particularly idealism and materialism. These comparisons help to delineate the unique claims and commitments of each metaphysical stance.

A. Realism vs. Idealism

The central point of divergence between realism and idealism concerns the existence and nature of a mind-independent reality.

• Fundamental Reality: Realism asserts that at least some aspects of reality (e.g., the physical world, abstract objects, moral truths) exist independently of human minds, thoughts, or consciousness. Idealism, in its various forms, generally posits that reality is fundamentally mental, spiritual, or that its existence is contingent upon being perceived or conceived by a mind.
• Nature of Objects: For a realist concerning the physical world, objects like tables and chairs possess properties and exist whether or not any mind is aware of them. For an idealist like Berkeley, such objects are collections of ideas, and their existence is their being perceived (esse est percipi).
• Source of Knowledge: While both realists and idealists are concerned with how knowledge is acquired, their starting points differ. Realists often (though not always) place trust in sensory experience or reason as tools for discovering a pre-existing, independent reality. Idealists, particularly epistemological idealists, argue that knowledge is inherently structured by the mind, or that we can only know our own mental states or ideas. Kant’s transcendental idealism, for example, argues that while things-in-themselves may exist independently, we can only know them as “appearances” structured by our mind’s a priori forms of intuition and categories.
• Truth: Realists typically subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth, where a belief or statement is true if it accurately reflects or corresponds to the way things are in the mind-independent world. Idealists might lean towards coherence theories of truth (truth as systematic consistency among beliefs) or define truth in terms internal to consciousness or a system of ideas.

It’s important to note that some forms of idealism can incorporate realist elements. For instance, Platonic idealism is realist about the Forms, asserting their objective, mind-independent existence, even though these Forms are ideal (non-material) entities. Similarly, some contemporary philosophers explore “realist formulations of idealism,” where things-in-themselves might be posited to have an intrinsically mental nature, yet exist independently of individual human minds.

B. Realism vs. Materialism

Materialism is a monistic ontological view asserting that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

• Relationship: Realism and materialism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are often compatible, particularly when discussing realism about the physical world. A materialist is typically a realist about the existence of a mind-independent physical world composed of matter.
• Points of Distinction:

• Scope: Realism is a broader stance that can apply to non-material entities. One can be a realist about abstract objects (like numbers or propositions, as in Platonism) or moral values without being a materialist. A Platonist, for example, is a realist about Forms, which are non-material, and thus not a materialist in that respect.
• Nature of Mind: Materialism specifically claims that mind and consciousness are reducible to, or emergent from, physical processes (e.g., brain activity). Realism
  per se does not make this claim about the nature of mind, though many realists about the physical world are also materialists. However, one could be a realist about the physical world and simultaneously a dualist about mind (believing mind is a distinct, non-material substance) or even an idealist about mind itself.
• Focus: Materialism is primarily an ontological doctrine about what fundamentally exists (matter). Realism is often more focused on the
  mind-independence of whatever entities it is concerned with, be they material or abstract. Materialism is sometimes considered an outdated term, with “physicalism” being preferred by some, as physics deals with entities like fields and energy that may not strictly be “material” in an older sense.
• Opposition to Idealism: Both materialism and realism (about the physical world) stand in opposition to idealism’s claim that reality is fundamentally mental or mind-dependent. Materialism directly counters idealism by asserting the primacy of matter, while realism counters it by asserting the mind-independence of the world.

The following table offers a comparative analysis of Realism, Idealism, and Materialism:

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Realism, Idealism, and Materialism

Philosophical Stance	Fundamental Reality Claim	Nature of External World	Nature of Mind/Consciousness
Realism (General)	Certain entities (physical, abstract, etc.) exist mind-independently.	Exists objectively, independent of perception or thought.	Its nature is not a defining feature of realism itself; can be material, non-material, or a separate issue.
Platonic Realism	Abstract Forms are the ultimate, mind-independent reality.	Physical world is a less real, mind-independent shadow of the Forms.	Apprehends Forms through reason; distinct from Forms.
Scientific Realism	The world described by science (including unobservables) exists mind-independently.	Physical world with unobservable structures/entities exists objectively.	Not central to the thesis; often implicitly materialist but not necessarily.
Idealism	Reality is fundamentally mental, spiritual, or mind-dependent.	Either a mental construct, dependent on perception, or an appearance of a mental reality.	Primary, fundamental, or the ultimate substance/activity; constitutes or shapes reality.
Materialism	Matter and physical processes are the sole fundamental reality.	Exists objectively and is composed entirely of matter/energy.	A product, epiphenomenon, or function of material processes (e.g., the brain); reducible to or emergent from matter.

This table highlights that while realism about the physical world often aligns with materialism in opposing idealism, realism as a broader philosophical stance can extend to non-material domains where materialism would not apply. The core of realism remains the assertion of mind-independence for its chosen domain of entities.

VIII. The Enduring Influence of Realism: Across Disciplines

Realism, with its core assertion of a mind-independent reality, has exerted a profound and enduring influence across a wide array of disciplines, shaping how we approach knowledge, science, ethics, and even art. Its emphasis on objectivity and the pursuit of truth about an existing world provides a foundational framework for many fields of inquiry.

A. Impact on Science and the Philosophy of Science

Realism, particularly Scientific Realism, has had a significant impact on the practice and understanding of science.

• Goal of Science: Scientific realism posits that the aim of science is to provide true (or approximately true) descriptions and explanations of a mind-independent world, including its unobservable aspects. This view motivates the scientific pursuit of deeper understanding and more accurate theories.
• Interpretation of Theories: It encourages interpreting scientific theories literally, meaning that the entities they postulate (like electrons, genes, or black holes) are taken to genuinely exist if the theories are well-confirmed.
• Progress in Science: Realism supports the idea that science makes genuine progress by accumulating more accurate knowledge about the world. Later theories are often seen as closer to the truth than earlier ones.
• Methodology: While not dictating specific methods, a realist stance often underpins the value placed on empirical evidence, rigorous testing, and the refinement of theories to better correspond with reality. The “no-miracles argument” itself suggests that the predictive success achieved through such methods is best explained by realism.

Even anti-realist philosophies of science (like instrumentalism or constructive empiricism) are often formulated in direct response to, and dialogue with, scientific realism, highlighting its central role in these debates.

B. Influence on Epistemology and Metaphysics

Realism is a cornerstone of many epistemological and metaphysical investigations.

• Theory of Knowledge: Realist epistemologies grapple with how we can acquire knowledge of a mind-independent world. This has led to various theories of perception (direct realism, indirect realism), justification, and truth (often a correspondence theory). The challenges posed by skepticism are often addressed from a realist standpoint that seeks to vindicate our cognitive capacities.
• Ontology: Metaphysical realism asserts the existence of certain kinds of entities independently of thought. This applies not only to the physical world but also to debates about the reality of abstract objects (e.g., numbers, universals, propositions in Platonic realism), possible worlds (modal realism), or moral properties (moral realism). These realist positions drive inquiry into the fundamental nature and structure of reality.

C. Realism in Ethics (Moral Realism)

Moral realism, the view that there are objective, mind-independent moral truths or facts, has significant implications for ethical theory and practice.

• Objectivity of Moral Judgments: If moral realism is true, then moral disagreements are not merely clashes of opinion or preference but disputes about actual moral facts. This allows for the possibility of genuine moral error and moral progress.
• Foundation for Normativity: Moral realism seeks to provide a firm foundation for moral obligations and values, grounding them in something beyond individual or cultural consensus.
• Influence on Applied Ethics and Law: The idea of objective moral principles can influence debates in applied ethics (e.g., human rights, justice) and the philosophical underpinnings of legal systems.

D. Realism in Literature and Art

In literature and the arts, realism emerged as a significant movement in the th century, partly as a reaction against the idealization and emotionalism of Romanticism.

• Focus on Verisimilitude: Literary and artistic realism aims to represent the world, society, and human life “as it is,” without idealization, sentimentality, or supernatural elements. It emphasizes accurate depiction of ordinary, everyday life, social conditions, and the complexities of human character and behavior.
• Social Commentary: Realist works often engage in social critique by portraying the realities of contemporary life, including its hardships, injustices, and hypocrisies.
• Technique: Realist artists and writers often employ detailed observation, plausible plots (in literature), and naturalistic representation (in visual arts) to achieve a sense of authenticity and truthfulness to experience.

While philosophical realism and artistic realism are distinct, they share a common orientation towards representing or understanding a reality that is considered objective and knowable, whether it’s the physical world, social structures, or human nature.

E. Impact on Political Theory and Social Sciences

Realist perspectives also inform political theory and the social sciences.

• Political Realism: In international relations, political realism is a school of thought that emphasizes the role of states acting in pursuit of their national interests, primarily power and security, in an anarchic international system. It tends to view international politics as a struggle for power, often downplaying the role of ideology or morality in state behavior, focusing instead on what it perceives as the enduring realities of power dynamics.
• Social Sciences: In sociology and other social sciences, realist approaches often seek to identify underlying structures, mechanisms, and causal processes that shape social phenomena, even if these are not immediately observable. Critical realism in the social sciences, for example, posits that there are real, mind-independent social structures that constrain and enable human agency.

Across these diverse fields, the influence of realism is evident in its drive towards objectivity, its commitment to understanding the world as it exists independently of our conceptions, and its belief in the possibility of acquiring genuine knowledge about that world.

IX. Realism in Contemporary Discourse: Relevance and Resurgence

Realism continues to be a vital and evolving philosophical stance in contemporary discourse, engaging with new challenges and finding renewed relevance in various fields, particularly in the philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and metaphysics.

A. Debates in Philosophy of Science and Quantum Mechanics

Scientific realism remains a central topic in the philosophy of science, with ongoing debates about its strengths and weaknesses. The advent of quantum mechanics, in particular, has presented unique challenges and opportunities for realist interpretations.

• Quantum Mechanics and Realism: Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic levels with remarkable accuracy, but its implications for our understanding of reality are deeply puzzling.

• The Observer Effect: The “observer effect” or measurement problem in quantum mechanics—where the act of measuring a quantum system seems to influence its state (e.g., “collapse of the wave function”)—has led some to question whether quantum properties have a definite, mind-independent existence prior to measurement. This has fueled interpretations that lean towards idealism or suggest a more active role for the observer in the constitution of reality. Realists in physics, however, maintain that the world is in some sense mind-independent, even if measurement outcomes don’t pre-exist the act of measurement. They look to interpret QM behavior as a result of deeper, ostensibly physical but unobservable phenomena.
• Local Realism Challenged: As discussed (Section VI.E), Bell’s theorem and experimental verifications have shown that “local realism” (the assumption that objects have definite local properties independent of measurement and that influences are limited by the speed of light) is incompatible with quantum mechanics. This has forced physicists and philosophers to reconsider what kind of realism, if any, is tenable at the quantum level. Some realist interpretations, like the Bohm and Many-Worlds Interpretations, attempt to preserve a form of realism but often at the cost of other classical intuitions.
• Realism as Counterfactual Definiteness: In the context of quantum mechanics, realism is sometimes rigorously defined as “counterfactual definiteness”—the idea that an observable has a well-defined value even before it is measured. Quantum mechanics challenges this notion for certain properties, suggesting that properties might be defined randomly upon measurement rather than pre-existing.

Despite these challenges, many physicists and philosophers continue to seek realist interpretations of quantum mechanics, believing that the theory, for all its strangeness, is telling us something true about an objective, mind-independent reality. The debate over the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a key area where realist commitments are tested and refined.

B. Realism in Philosophy of Mind

In the philosophy of mind, realism often manifests as a commitment to the real existence of mental states (like beliefs, desires, and consciousness) and their properties, often in opposition to eliminativist or radical behaviorist views that might deny their reality or reduce them to mere behavior.

• Realism about Consciousness: Most philosophers of mind are realists about consciousness, acknowledging its existence as a genuine phenomenon to be explained, even if its nature and relationship to the physical brain (the “hard problem of consciousness”) are deeply contested.
• Realism vs. Anti-Realism about Propositional Attitudes: There are debates about the ontological status of propositional attitudes like beliefs and desires. Realists (e.g., Jerry Fodor) have argued that these are real, causally efficacious internal states, while anti-realists or instrumentalists (e.g., Daniel Dennett, in some interpretations) might view them as useful predictive stances or abstractions rather than discrete, internal entities.

C. New Realism and Speculative Realism

Contemporary philosophy has seen the emergence of movements like “New Realism” and “Speculative Realism,” which, in various ways, seek to reassert realist theses against what they perceive as the dominance of anti-realist, correlationist, or constructivist thought in late 20th-century philosophy.

• New Realism (Contemporary): Figures like Maurizio Ferraris have advocated for a “New Realism” that argues against the postmodern idea that “there are no facts, only interpretations”. This New Realism emphasizes the mind-independent existence of a significant portion of reality and the constraints it places on our knowledge and actions, asserting that philosophy, jurisprudence, linguistics, and history can say something important and true about the world.
• Speculative Realism: This is a diverse and loosely affiliated movement that includes thinkers like Quentin Meillassoux, Graham Harman, Ray Brassier, and Iain Hamilton Grant. A common thread is a critique of “correlationism”—the Kantian idea that we can only ever know the correlation between thought and being, never being as it is in itself, independent of thought. Speculative realists, in different ways, attempt to break out of this correlationist circle and affirm the possibility of thought accessing or making claims about a reality that is independent of human cognition.
  Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO), associated with Harman, is one prominent strand that asserts the reality and autonomy of objects, independent of their relations to humans or other objects, and rejects anthropocentrism by placing all object relations on an equal ontological footing. OOO maintains that objects withdraw from full accessibility, existing independently of perception and their relations.

These contemporary movements indicate that realism is not a static doctrine but continues to adapt and respond to new philosophical challenges, including those posed by scientific advancements and shifts in the broader intellectual landscape. The fundamental realist impulse—to affirm and understand a world that exists independently of our minds—remains a powerful force in philosophical inquiry.

X. Conclusion: The Persistent Significance of Realism

Realism, in its multifaceted expressions, stands as one of the most enduring and foundational philosophical stances. Its core assertion—that some aspects of reality exist independently of our minds, perceptions, or conceptual schemes—resonates deeply with common-sense intuitions and provides a crucial framework for much of human inquiry, from scientific investigation to ethical deliberation.

A. Synthesizing the Multifaceted Nature of Realism

Throughout its history, realism has manifested in diverse forms, each tailored to the specific domain of entities it addresses. We have seen Platonic realism championing the mind-independent existence of abstract Forms, Aristotelian realism grounding universals within particular things, and scientific realism arguing for the truth-approximating nature of our best scientific theories about an unobservable world. Moral realism posits objective moral facts, while perceptual realism, in its direct and indirect variants, grapples with our cognitive access to the external physical world. Contemporary movements like New Realism and Speculative Realism continue to push the boundaries of realist thought, challenging anti-realist orthodoxies and seeking new ways to affirm a mind-independent reality.

This diversity underscores that realism is not a monolithic dogma but a flexible and adaptable philosophical orientation. What unites these varied positions is a commitment to the idea that there is something “out there”—be it physical, abstract, or normative—that is not merely a product of human thought or construction, and which serves as a target for our knowledge and a constraint on our beliefs.

B. Its Enduring Questions and Contributions to Human Thought

The enduring significance of realism lies in its persistent engagement with fundamental questions about the nature of existence, truth, and knowledge.

• Grounding Objectivity: Realism provides a basis for the concept of objectivity. By positing a mind-independent reality, it allows for the possibility of objective truth—statements being true or false based on how that reality is, rather than solely on subjective perspectives or social agreement.
• Making Sense of Inquiry: Realism underpins the very notion of inquiry and discovery. If there is a reality independent of us, then scientific investigation, philosophical reflection, and even everyday learning can be understood as attempts to uncover its features and structure. The success of science, in particular, is often cited by realists as evidence for this view.
• Addressing Skepticism: While realism itself faces skeptical challenges, it also offers a robust framework for resisting radical skepticism or solipsism by affirming our capacity to know, at least in part, a world that is not of our own making.
• Foundation for Norms: In ethics and political philosophy, realist positions can provide a foundation for objective norms and values, moving beyond mere relativism or subjectivism.

C. Avenues for Future Exploration and Understanding

The questions posed and addressed by realism remain central to contemporary philosophical debates, and its dialogue with other fields continues to be fruitful.

1. Philosophy of Science and Quantum Mechanics: The interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a critical area where realist intuitions are challenged and refined. Future work will continue to explore what forms of realism are compatible with our best physical theories and how to understand the nature of reality at its most fundamental level.
2. Metaphysics of Abstract Objects: The debate between realism, nominalism, and conceptualism regarding abstract entities like numbers, properties, and propositions is perennial. New arguments and approaches continue to emerge in this core area of metaphysics.
3. Cognitive Science and Perception: Advances in cognitive science and neuroscience provide new data and perspectives on the nature of perception and consciousness, fueling ongoing discussions between direct and indirect realists, and challenging all views to account for the complexities of how minds interact with the world.
4. Social Ontology and Critical Realism: Understanding the nature of social realities—institutions, structures, and conventions—and their relationship to individual agency and mind-independent material conditions is a growing area where realist frameworks, particularly critical realism, are being developed and applied.

Realism’s commitment to a world beyond our own minds drives the quest for knowledge and understanding. While the specific forms and arguments for realism will continue to evolve in response to new discoveries and philosophical challenges, its fundamental orientation—towards an objective reality that we strive to comprehend—is likely to remain an indispensable part of the human intellectual endeavor. The ongoing dialogue between realism and its critics ensures that our understanding of the intricate relationship between thought and world remains a dynamic and vital area of inquiry.

Works cited

1. Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), accessed June 10, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
2. Idealism – Wikipedia, accessed June 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
3. Subjective idealism – Wikipedia, accessed June 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism
4. Arguments For and Against Scientific Realism – Bibliography – PhilPapers, accessed June 11, 2025, https://philpapers.org/browse/arguments-for-and-against-scientific-realism
5. Scientific Realism and Antirealism | Internet Encyclopedia of …, accessed June 11, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/
6. Idealism, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%204%20Metaphysics/Idealism.htm
7. Plato’s Theory of Ideas | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/platos-theory-ideas
8. Realism | Definition, Theory, Philosophy, History, & Varieties …, accessed June 11, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-philosophy
9. www.numberanalytics.com, accessed June 11, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/realism-in-plato-and-aristotle#:~:text=Implications%20of%20their%20Views%20on,rooted%20in%20matter%20and%20form.
10. Exploring Realism in Ancient Philosophy – Number Analytics, accessed June 11, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/realism-in-plato-and-aristotle
11. The Medieval Problem of Universals – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 11, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/universals-medieval/
12. Introduction_To_Philosophy_Dallas_M_Roark_ch_11, accessed June 11, 2025, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/Roark-Textbook/Chapter-11.htm
13. New realism (philosophy) – Wikipedia, accessed June 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_realism_(philosophy)
14. New realism | Existentialism, Phenomenology, Pragmatism | Britannica, accessed June 11, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/new-realism-philosophy
15. www.ebsco.com, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/platos-theory-ideas#:~:text=Plato’s%20Theory%20of%20Ideas%2C%20also,the%20true%20essence%20of%20things.
16. Materialism, Realism, and the Theory of Reflection (1982) – Red Sails, accessed June 11, 2025, https://redsails.org/materialism-realism-reflection/
17. Idealism – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics of Philosophy, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html
18. Metaethics – Philosophy A Level, accessed June 11, 2025, https://philosophyalevel.com/aqa-philosophy-revision-notes/metaethics/
19. Moral realism – Wikipedia, accessed June 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
20. Tiago Reiser, Fragments of Reality: Common Sense Realism and the Structure of Knowledge – PhilArchive, accessed June 11, 2025, https://philarchive.org/rec/REIFOR
21. Noah Marcelino Lemos, Common Sense: A Contemporary Defense – PhilPapers, accessed June 11, 2025, https://philpapers.org/rec/LEMCSA-6
22. Knowledge from Perception – Philosophy A Level, accessed June 11, 2025, https://philosophyalevel.com/aqa-philosophy-revision-notes/theories-of-perception/
23. Why were the founders of quantum mechanics idealists? – Philosophy Stack Exchange, accessed June 10, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/107864/why-were-the-founders-of-quantum-mechanics-idealists
24. Materialism vs Idealism – (World Literature I) – Vocab, Definition …, accessed June 10, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/world-literature-i/materialism-vs-idealism
25. Idealism | Encyclopedia.com, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/philosophy/philosophy-terms-and-concepts/idealism
26. Chapter 2. What Is Dialectical Materialism? – Philosophy and Class Struggle by Dialego, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm
27. PHILOSOPHY (GENERAL) SEM 2 Paper CC-2 WESTERN PHILOSOPHY TOPIC–Idealism vs. Realism, accessed June 10, 2025, https://dacollege.org/uploads/stdmat/phil-sem2-Idealism-vs-Realism.pdf
28. Idealism Versus Realism | A Concise Theory of Truly Everything – UChicago Voices, accessed June 10, 2025, https://voices.uchicago.edu/actote/2022/06/01/idealism-versus-realism/
29. For i_am_lane: Idealism vs. Materialism – Philosophy on LiveJournal, accessed June 10, 2025, https://philosophy.livejournal.com/1534525.html
30. Difference between materialism and idealism : r/askphilosophy – Reddit, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/jiy6fs/difference_between_materialism_and_idealism/
31. Idealism | Inters.org, accessed June 10, 2025, https://inters.org/idealism
32. Transcendental idealism | Definition & Facts – Britannica, accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/transcendental-idealism
33. Immanuel Kant: Transcendental Idealism – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 10, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/kant-transcendental-idealism/
34. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 10, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/
35. Idealism or materialism: Two approaches to the world — Fight Back …, accessed June 10, 2025, https://fightbacknews.org/articles/idealism-or-materialism-two-approaches-world
36. Materialism versus idealism – an ongoing battle – The Philosopher’s Shirt, accessed June 10, 2025, https://the-philosophers-shirt.com/blogs/philosophical-dictionary/philosophy-memes-explained-is-there-more-than-the-smallest-particles-qualitatively-speaking
37. Materialism – Wikipedia, accessed June 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
38. Materialism Vs. Idealism: A Comparative Study – Understanding the Key Differences, accessed June 10, 2025, https://philodive.com/blog/materialism-vs–idealism–a-comparative-study
39. Realism is not a Synonym for Materialism | Larval Subjects . – WordPress.com, accessed June 11, 2025, https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/realism-is-not-a-synonym-for-materialism/
40. Realism (international relations) – Wikipedia, accessed June 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)
41. Does quantum mechanics beckon the end of naturalism? (The Return of Idealism), accessed June 10, 2025, https://www.essentiafoundation.org/does-quantum-mechanics-beckon-the-end-of-naturalism/reading/
42. Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology: a Critical Introduction – Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, accessed June 11, 2025, https://thebrooklyninstitute.com/items/courses/new-york/speculative-realism-and-object-oriented-ontology-a-critical-introduction-2/
43. Object-oriented ontology – Wikipedia, accessed June 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology
44. eli5: What is the difference between Direct Realism and Representative Realism (i.e., direct vs indirect perception)? : r/explainlikeimfive – Reddit, accessed June 11, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uqcs94/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_direct/