智能时代技术理性异化研究——以《启蒙辩证法》为视角

Research on the Rational Alienation of Technology in the Era of Intelligence—From the Perspective of “Dialectics of Enlightenment”

摘要: 《启蒙辩证法》揭示了启蒙本身内含自我反转的悖论：源于人类“自我持存”本能的启蒙理性，沿着祛魅–控制–异化的逻辑不断演化，原本旨在实现人的解放的理性，却催生出支配人的技术理性。在人工智能与算法深度渗透社会的今天，工具理性的同一性逻辑借由数字技术获得新的载体，在社会劳动、个体认知、人与自然关系、文化生产领域衍生出新的异化形态，算法规训、认知茧房、AIGC文化工业等现实问题不断凸显。本文以“神话–祛魅–算法”为分析线索，梳理启蒙走向自我颠倒的理论进程，剖析智能时代技术理性带来的多重现实困境，同时辩证反思法兰克福学派批判理论的内在限度。立足制度、技术、主体、文化、生态五个维度探寻价值理性规约工具理性的纾解路径，并结合我国人工智能治理实践，思考中国式现代化语境下实现技术与人和谐共生的可能，为防范智能时代的技术异化提供思想镜鉴。

Abstract: “Dialectics of Enlightenment” reveals the paradox of self-reversal inherent in enlightenment itself: Enlightenment rationality, which originates from the instinct of human “self-preservation”, continues to evolve along the logic of exorcism - control - alienation. The rationality originally intended to achieve human liberation has given rise to the technical rationality that governs humans. In today’s society where artificial intelligence and algorithms deeply penetrate, the identity logic of instrumental rationality has gained new carriers through digital technology, giving rise to new forms of alienation in social labor, individual cognition, human nature relations, and cultural production. Practical problems such as algorithm training, cognitive cocoons, and AIGC cultural industry continue to emerge. This article takes “myth - dispelling charm - algorithm” as the analytical thread, sorts out the theoretical process of enlightenment moving towards self-reversal, analyzes the multiple practical difficulties brought by technological rationality in the intelligent era, and dialectically reflects on the internal limitations of the Frankfurt School’s critical theory. Based on the five dimensions of system, technology, subject, culture and ecology, this paper explores the relief path of the value rationality convention instrumental rationality, and considers the possibility of achieving harmonious coexistence of technology and people in the context of Chinese path to modernization in combination with China’s AI governance practice, so as to provide an ideological mirror for preventing technological alienation in the intelligent era.