The construction of Digital Reality: Intellectual Versus Social

Cover Page

Cite item


The aim of this article is to compare two models of reality construction and their applicability to explain the various effects of the digitalization process. The evolution of the constructivist ideas about reality is reconstructed in the context of the dispute among realists and constructivists, which was one of the most significant events in the epistemology and philosophy of science of the 20th century. The author points out the differences between the intellectual and the social construction of reality, and carries out a comparative analysis of the philosophical theories and concepts describing the aforementioned alternatives. The intellectual construction of reality, which often takes place in theoretical physics at different stages of its development, is also analyzed. Particular consideration is given to the philosophic-scientific contexts generated by the sociology of knowledge, the theory of speech acts, and the actor-network theory. The article also shows a distinction between the construction and the constitution of reality. The constitution of reality within various types of non-theoretical (pre-theoretical, post-theoretical) thinking, fixed using the means and methods of phenomenological philosophy of science, allows identifying and describing the main contexts through which the word “reality” acquires significance and is endowed with meaning in the present-day intellectual and social practices. Special attention is paid to the concepts of “virtual reality” and “digital reality.” The features of the intellectual construction of virtual reality are described. The difference between the intellectual and the social construction of digital reality is substantiated as between two alternative practices, which determine the meaning, and the prospects of digitalization. This distinction may be of particular interest to those who design digital platforms and implement digitalization in various areas of human life and society, especially in as education, legal procedure, management, economics, and business. Today, when partly spontaneous, partly controlled digitalization is taking place in these spheres, the results of this study make it possible not only to understand the logic of the changes taking place but also to apply forecasting and planning methods actively, i.e., constructing the digital reality.

About the authors

Vladimir I. Przhilenskiy

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)

Author for correspondence.

Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya St., Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation


  1. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason. Moscow: Mysl'; 1994. (In Russian).
  2. Przhilenskiy VI. The Idea of Reality and Epistemological Constructivism. Voprosy filosofii. 2010;(11):105—114. (In Russian).
  3. Putnam H. Mathematics, Matter and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1975.
  4. Fraassen BC van. Structure: Its Shadow and Substance // The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 2006;57(2):275—307.
  5. Ladyman J, Ross D, Spurrett D, Collier J. Every Thing Must Go. Metaphysics Naturalized. New York: Oxford University Press. Inc.; 2007.
  6. Lectorskiу VA, Pruzhinin BI, Shchedrina TG, Trufanova EO, Pirozhkova SV, Rozin VM. Constructivism vs realism // Epistemology and philosophy of science. 2015;43(1):19—53. (In Russian).
  7. Rockmore T. Kant on Representationism and Constructivism. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 2005;3(1):35—46. (In Russian).
  8. Przhilenskiy VI. “Reality”: socio-epistemological study. Voprosy filosofii. 2013; (9):91—106. (In Russian).
  9. Descartes R. Sochineniya. V 2-kh tomakh. Т.1. [Collection of works in 2 vols. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Mysl'; 1989. (In Russian).
  10. Einstein A. Sobranie nauchnykh trudov v 4 t. T.4. [Collection of scientific works in 4 vols. Vol. 4]. Moscow: Nauka; 1967. (In Russian).
  11. Harman G. Fear of Reality: On Realism and Infra-Realism // The Monist. 2015;(3):1—19.
  12. Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal'; 2004. (In Russian).
  13. Bacon F. Sochineniya. V 2-kh tomakh. T. II. [Collection of works in 2 vols. Vol. II]. Moscow: Mysl'; 1971. (In Russian).
  14. Foucault M. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of Prison. Moscow: Ad Marginem; 1999. (In Russian).
  15. Sorokin P. Fads and Foible in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences. Chicago: Henry Regnery; 1956.
  16. Preston B. Of Marigold Beer: A Reply to Vermaas and Houkes. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 2003;54(4):601—612.
  17. Berger P, Luckman T. Social construction of reality. A treatise on sociology of knowledge. Moscow: Medium; 1995. (In Russian).
  18. Searle J. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press; 1995.
  19. Latour B. Reassembly of the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics; 2014. (In Russian).
  20. Pettit P. The Virtual Reality of Homo Economicus. The Monist. 1995;78(3):308—329.
  21. Landa M de. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy on Deleuze. London: Continuum; 2002.
  22. Khoruzhiy SS. Genus or Non-Genus? Notes on Ontology of Virtuality. Voprosy filosofii. 1997;(6):53—68. (In Russian).
  23. Deleuze J. Difference and repetition. St. Petersburg: Petropolis; 1998. (In Russian).
  24. Floridi L. Against digital ontology. Synthese. 2009;(168):151—178.
  25. Thébault KPY. Quantization as a Guide to Ontic Structure. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 2016;67(1):89—114.

Copyright (c) 2021 Przhilenskiy V.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies