符号的裂隙与信任的悖论——从形而上学到实践辩证法 (The Fissure of Symbols and the Paradox of Trust - From Metaphysics to Practical Dialectics)
Contemporary society is undergoing a profound crisis of trust. This crisis does not merely manifest as a localized decay in the moral domain, but penetrates comprehensively across all dimensions of interpersonal relations, gender relations, state relations, and class relations. This essay seeks to demonstrate that this crisis of trust has deep epistemological roots in the structural defects inherent to the symbolic system itself, and that any response to this crisis requires us to accomplish a theoretical turn from metaphysical pursuit to dialectical praxis.
当代社会似乎正经历着一场深刻的信任危机。这场危机并非仅仅表现为道德领域的局部衰退,而是全方位地渗透于人际关系、性别关系、国家关系乃至阶级关系的各个维度。本文试图指出,这场信任危机有其深层的认识论根源,即符号系统本身所固有的结构性缺陷,而对这一危机的回应,需要我们完成一次从形而上学追求到辩证实践的思想转向。
The dilemma of the symbolic system lies in its insurmountable dual failure: on one hand, the will of a subject has never been able to achieve complete representation through symbols—symbols as mediators can never exhaust the totality of subjectivity; on the other hand, the subject constructed by symbols—that “I” which is constituted and recognized through symbolic exchange—has never been able to genuinely reflect the original will of the subject. This ontological fissure between symbol and reality has long been concealed by the habitus of social practice. People have assumed the reliability of symbols in everyday life and have established fragile mechanisms of trust upon this foundation.
符号系统的困境在于其不可克服的双重失效:一方面,主体的意志从未能够通过符号获得完全的代理,符号作为中介永远无法穷尽主体性的全部内容;另一方面,符号构筑的主体——那个在符号交换中被建构、被辨识的”我”——也从未能真实地反映主体的原初意志。这种符号与真实之间的本体论裂隙,长期以来被社会实践中的惯习所遮蔽,人们在日常生活中默认了符号的可靠性,并在此基础上建立起脆弱的信任机制。
The emergence of artificial intelligence technology, along with the systematic abuse of symbols—phenomena such as fabricated images, generated texts, and deepfakes—has dramatically intensified this crisis. When the production of symbols no longer requires the support of subjective will, when symbols can be infinitely reproduced, manipulated, and recombined by technology, the collapse of the symbolic order becomes an irreversible trend. Under these circumstances, how to reconstruct trust between human beings becomes an urgent theoretical and practical question.
人工智能技术的出现,以及对符号的系统性滥用——诸如伪造图像、生成文本、深度伪造等现象——极大地加剧了这一危机。当符号的生产不再需要主体意志的支撑,当符号可以被技术无限复制、篡改、重组,符号秩序的崩塌便成为一个不可逆转的趋势。在这种情况下,如何重新构筑人与人之间的信任,成为一个紧迫的理论和实践课题。
Faced with the crisis of symbolic order, an intuitive response is to attempt to rebuild trust “where symbols disappear.” Relational being—a state of fusion where you are in me and I am in you—seems to offer the possibility of transcending symbolic mediation. The commercial liberal tradition in international relations theory provides certain empirical support for this line of thinking: when trade relations between nations are deeply intertwined, the possibility of war tends to decrease, and peace becomes a rational choice based on mutual dependence. This phenomenon suggests that the strengthening of relationality might be a condition for the generation of trust.
面对符号秩序的危机,一种直觉性的回应是试图在”符号消失的地方”重建信任。关系性存在——一种你中有我、我中有你的融合状态——似乎提供了超越符号中介的可能性。国际关系理论中的商业自由主义传统为这一思路提供了某种经验支持:当国家间的贸易关系深度交织,战争的可能性趋于降低,和平成为一种基于相互依赖的理性选择。这种现象暗示,关系性的强化可能是信任生成的条件。
However, this approach faces fundamental difficulties. First, even the “direct experience” invoked by relational being cannot completely escape symbolic mediation. What we call actions, gestures, and expressions are already, in the phenomenological sense, symbolized practices. The so-called “place where symbols disappear” is itself a metaphysical illusion. Second, and more critically, the trust described by commercial liberal theory is essentially a formal trust based on interest calculation, rather than trust based on pure reason in the Kantian sense. It depends on specific structural conditions—trade networks, international institutions, legal frameworks—and these conditions are themselves components of the symbolic order.
然而,这一思路面临着根本性的困难。首先,即便是关系性存在所诉诸的”直接经验”,也无法完全摆脱符号的中介。我们所谓的行动、姿态、表情,在现象学意义上都已经是符号化的实践。所谓”符号消失的地方”本身就是一个形而上学的幻象。其次,更关键的是,商业自由主义理论所描述的信任,本质上是一种形式性的、基于利益计算的信任,而非康德意义上基于纯粹理性的信任。它依赖于特定的结构性条件——贸易网络、国际制度、法律框架——而这些条件本身就是符号秩序的组成部分。
Thus, our thinking falls into a paradox: on one hand, we attempt to transcend symbols to rebuild trust; on the other hand, we find that any reconstruction of trust inevitably appeals to symbols and structures. This paradox reveals that the pursuit of a “pure,” “structure-transcending,” “non-symbolized” trust is itself a metaphysical trap. What we need is not to escape from symbols and structures, but to reunderstand their dialectical role in the construction of trust.
因此,我们的思考陷入了一个悖论:一方面,我们试图超越符号以重建信任;另一方面,我们发现任何信任的重建都不可避免地要诉诸符号和结构。这个悖论揭示出,追求一种”纯粹的”、”超越结构的”、”非符号化的”信任,本身就是一个形而上学的陷阱。我们需要的不是逃离符号和结构,而是重新理解它们在信任构建中的辩证角色。
Here we need to introduce a crucial conceptual turn: acknowledging the generative function of difference. Hegel’s dialectics reminds us that the existence of any object must presuppose the existence of its opposite; difference is the fundamental driving force of systemic evolution and generation. In the matter of trust, this means that “distrust” should not be viewed as a pathology to be completely eliminated, but as a necessary condition for trust to be possible. Necessary distrust—prudence, questioning, critical reflection—is precisely the driving force that propels the evolution of social systems. A society without any distrust would be a rigid system that has lost its critical capacity and ability for self-renewal.
这里需要引入一个关键的概念转向:承认差异的生成性功能。黑格尔的辩证法提醒我们,任何客体的存在都必须以其对立面的存在为前提,差异是系统演化和生成的根本动力。在信任问题上,这意味着”不信任”不应被视为需要彻底消除的病态,而是信任得以可能的必要条件。必要的不信任——审慎、质疑、批判性反思——恰恰是推动社会系统进化的动力。一个没有任何不信任的社会,将是一个丧失了批判性和自我更新能力的僵化系统。
From this, we can accomplish an important theoretical reversal. The question is not how to eliminate structure to achieve pure trust, but how to realize the dialectical generation of trust within structure. In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant argues that true freedom is not lawless arbitrariness, but the capacity for self-legislation—realizing freedom within the laws established by reason. Similarly, true trust is not a state of transparency after eliminating all symbols, structures, and differences, but a rational choice that can still be made while acknowledging the imperfection of symbols, the necessity of structures, and the generativity of differences. This kind of trust is conscious and agential; it does not deny risk, but chooses to bear risk; it does not deny uncertainty, but seeks the possibility of action within uncertainty.
由此,我们可以完成一个重要的理论翻转。问题不在于如何消除结构以达到纯粹信任,而在于如何在结构之中实现信任的辩证生成。康德在《实践理性批判》中论证,真正的自由不是无法则的任意妄为,而是自我立法的能力——在理性设定的法则中实现自由。类似地,真正的信任不是消除所有符号、结构和差异之后的透明状态,而是在承认符号的不完美性、结构的必要性、差异的生成性的前提下,仍然能够做出的理性选择。这种信任是有意识的、能动的,它不否认风险,但选择承担风险;它不否认不确定性,但在不确定性中寻找行动的可能性。
Therefore, in order to pursue trust—even trust in some sense “pure”—structural conditions are conversely necessary. The intervention of contracts, power, and law is not a betrayal of trust, but the institutional guarantee for trust to exist stably. Here emerges a subtle dialectical relationship: we have been trying to escape structure to pursue metaphysical, non-structural pure trust, unaware that it is precisely within structure that we gain rational freedom and approach the possibility of pure trust. Structure is not the antithesis of freedom, but the condition of freedom; institutions are not the enemy of trust, but the infrastructure of trust.
因此,为了追寻信任——即便是某种意义上的”纯粹信任”——结构性的条件反而是必要的。契约、权力、法律的介入,不是对信任的背叛,而是信任得以稳定存在的制度性保障。这里出现了一个精妙的辩证关系:我们一直试图脱离结构去追求形而上的、非结构的纯粹信任,殊不知,恰恰是在结构之中,我们才获得了理性的自由,才接近了纯粹信任的可能性。结构不是自由的对立面,而是自由的条件;制度不是信任的敌人,而是信任的基础设施。
This theoretical turn provides us with a dual-level practical framework. At the individual level, we need to move toward the micro-practices of relational being: cultivating care for others in daily life, developing the capacity to understand the situations of others, and nurturing empathy, sensibility, and intuition. This ethical practice does not aim to eliminate difference, but to establish connection within difference, and to maintain the will to communicate despite the imperfection of symbols. At the social level, we need to strengthen legal construction and institutional innovation, improve contractual mechanisms, and establish effective systems of oversight and accountability. These structural arrangements are not expressions of distrust in human nature, but provide stable soil for the growth of trust.
这一理论转向为我们提供了一个双层次的实践框架。在个人层面,我们需要走向关系性存在的微观实践:在日常生活中培养对他者的关心,发展理解他人处境的能力,培养共情、感性与直觉力。这种伦理实践不是要消除差异,而是要在差异中建立联结,在符号的不完美中仍然保持沟通的意愿。在社会层面,我们需要加强法律建设和制度创新,完善契约机制,建立有效的监督和问责体系。这些结构性安排不是对人性的不信任,而是为信任的生长提供稳定的土壤。
Furthermore, in the age of artificial intelligence, we perhaps need to develop a new “symbolic ethics.” This ethics does not aim to eliminate symbols, but teaches us how to use symbols responsibly; it does not pursue complete transparency, but cultivates reverence and imagination for “the Other behind the symbol.” It requires us to maintain vigilance about the boundary between the real and the virtual in our use of technology, but not to fall into paranoid skepticism; it requires us to acknowledge the fragility of the symbolic system, but not to abandon the effort to establish connection through symbols.
更进一步,在人工智能时代,我们或许还需要发展一种新的”符号伦理学”。这种伦理学不以消灭符号为目标,而是教导我们如何负责任地使用符号;不追求完全的透明性,而是培养对”符号背后的他者”的敬畏与想象力。它要求我们在技术使用中保持对真实与虚拟边界的警觉,但不陷入偏执的怀疑主义;它要求我们承认符号系统的脆弱性,但不放弃通过符号建立联结的努力。
In conclusion, the root of the contemporary crisis of trust lies in the structural defects of the symbolic system, and these defects have been dramatically amplified in the technological age. The response to this crisis cannot appeal to metaphysical pursuits of purity, but requires the accomplishment of a dialectical theoretical turn: acknowledging the necessity of difference, accepting the legitimacy of structure, and seeking the possibility of trust reconstruction within rather than outside the symbolic order. True trust is the capacity to still choose to trust while acknowledging uncertainty; it is the freedom to pursue pure relations with the support of structure. This is both a theoretical question and a practical task that needs to unfold simultaneously on two levels: individual ethical practice and social institutional construction. Only when we abandon the metaphysical illusion of absolute trust can we find, in relativity, finitude, and structurality, the soil in which trust can genuinely grow.
作为总结,当代信任危机的根源在于符号系统的结构性缺陷,而这一缺陷在技术时代被急剧放大。对这一危机的回应,不能诉诸形而上学的纯粹性追求,而需要完成一次辩证的理论转向:承认差异的必要性,接纳结构的正当性,在符号秩序之中而非之外寻找信任重构的可能性。真正的信任,是在承认不确定性的前提下仍然选择去信任的能力,是在结构的支撑下追求纯粹关系的自由。这既是一个理论问题,更是一个需要在个人伦理实践和社会制度建设两个层面同时展开的实践课题。只有当我们放弃对绝对信任的形而上学幻想,才能在相对性、有限性和结构性之中,找到信任得以真实生长的土壤。