آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 54 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 2,644 |
| تعداد مقالات | 37,372 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 18,718,178 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,537,850 |
تأثیر هوش مصنوعی بر اخلاق و سیاست با تأکید بر دیدگاه هایدگر | ||
| نقد و نظر در فلسفه و کلام | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 31، شماره 122، تیر 1405، صفحه 1-31 اصل مقاله (1.58 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی ـ پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22081/jpt.2025.72283.2256 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| رضوان نجفی* 1؛ سید محمدرضا محمودپناهی* 2 | ||
| 1دکتری، گروه فلسفه و الهیات، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، دانشگاه پیام نور تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران (نویسنده مسئول). | ||
| 2استادیار، گروه معارف اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران. | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 20 تیر 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 15 مهر 1404، تاریخ پذیرش: 16 مهر 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در عصر انقلاب صنعتی چهارم که به «عصر دیجیتال» معروف است، شاهد تحول در فن حکمرانی و به وجود آمدن عصر حکومت هوش مصنوعی هستیم. مفهوم «حاکمیت هوش مصنوعی» و «حکمرانی هوش مصنوعی» بارها در بحث علوم سیاسی و فلسفه مورد استفاده قرار میگیرد. نتایج نشان میدهد از دیدگاه پدیدارشناسی، غایت سیاسی باید سیاست هستی باشد تا تأثیر فناوری از هستی انسان زدوده شود. محوریت این پژوهش نشاندادن سلطه و حاکیمت بیش از حد و نامشروع هوش مصنوعی در کلیۀ امور زندگی مادی و معنوی افراد است. در این پژوهش، بر تقدم رفتار اخلاقی فضیلتمند و قواعد هنجاری و اصول حقوقی انسانی در کنترل حکمرانی تأکید شده است. همچنین این پژوهش بر حفظ جهان، ارزشهای زندگی و هستی انسان، و حفظ اصول اخلاقی موجود در جهت مشروعیتزدایی از عقلانیت ریاضیگونۀ جهان مدرن و نامشروعبودن آن تمرکز دارد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| پدیدارشناسی؛ هوش مصنوعی؛ هایدگر؛ ارزشها؛ اخلاق | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Ethics and Politics with an Emphasis on Heidegger’s Perspectives in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Rezvan Najafi1؛ Seyyed Mohammadreza Mahmoudpanahi2 | ||
| 1PhD, Department of Philosophy and Theology, Faculty of Humanities, Payam Noor University of Tehran South, Tehran, Iran (Responsible author). | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| 1. Statement of the Problem: In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, commonly known as the digital age, we are witnessing a fundamental transformation in the art of statecraft and the emergence of the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance. The concepts of "AI sovereignty" and "AI governance" are increasingly utilized within political science and philosophy. AI has become the core nucleus of the contemporary scientific revolution; since 2010, parallel with breakthroughs in programming, highly sophisticated software has emerged, and the supercomputers required to build the most advanced AI models have been mobilized. Politicians, ideologues, and scientists can no longer ignore its new conceptual paradigms and tools. However, the widespread deployment of AI has brought long-standing, fundamental problems in political philosophy back to the fore with renewed urgency, while simultaneously generating entirely new philosophical dilemmas. AI has challenged numerous ethical values and heavily influenced political and interpersonal relations, effectively instigating another Copernican revolution. At the center of this revolution lies AI itself, which substitutes machine- and robot-based living for moral, spiritual, and religious values. With the rise of electronic government (e-government), AI has perceptibly altered social and political structures. In the realm of ethics, the application of AI raises a critical question: How can a single algorithmic prescription be applied to all members of society? Treating every individual identically is not only impossible but highly objectionable. Furthermore, AI appears inefficient or even inapplicable within the domain of practical and moral reason (al-aql al-amali). A major part of ethical principles fluctuates based on temporal and spatial contexts, as well as varying human circumstances. Ethical foundations are not equivalent to mathematical data where a specific formula consistently yields a predetermined result; rather, they are rooted in human conscience and innate nature (fitrah), demanding specific dynamics according to diverse situational requirements. Research Objective and Focus: The primary focus of this research is to demonstrate the excessive, illegitimate dominance and sovereignty of AI over all dimensions of both material and spiritual human life. The study emphasizes the priority of virtuous moral behavior, normative rules, and human legal principles in controlling governance. Ultimately, it aims to defend the preservation of the world, human existence, life values, and existing ethical principles in order to delegitimize the mathematical, mechanistic rationality of the modern world. Beyond exposing the illegitimacy of technocratic democratic systems, this paper highlights the necessity of new industrial democracy movements to combat the ruling technocrats of the political system, allowing human rationality to supplant technological rationality. 3. Research Methodology: Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method grounded in Martin Heidegger's philosophy and comparing it with the perspectives of other thinkers, this paper elucidates the Heideggerian view on the impact of AI on the contemporary world. It classifies philosophical reactions to this crisis, contrasting pessimistic, critical phenomenologists with moderate ones who seek to manage the status quo. Research Results: The study demonstrates that AI sovereignty represents the absolute domination and hegemony of technology and modernity over all facets of human life. This state of affairs has drawn severe criticism from philosophers, theologians, and phenomenologists. Their primary objection stems from the conceptual conflation and integration of domains that cannot logically coexist under a single principle. Ethical discussions—centered on conscience, innate nature, and practical reason—cannot be subsumed under the conceptual frameworks of theoretical reason, such as mathematical and mechanical parameters. Yet, from the perspective of Cartesian rationality, the universe as a whole can be described by a mathematical algorithm—a premise realized today through AI. Phenomenology acts primarily as a reaction against this physical and mathematical rationality. It does not present itself as a mere negation of modernity; instead, it offers the possibility of a recovery that is not a superficial patch, but a fundamental reformation of human and political society. Phenomenology actively combats a digital lifestyle that some individuals might prefer over morality under the guise of modernity. While it historically holds a smaller share of discourse compared to liberal and critical paradigms, and while the newer approach of post-phenomenology examines the human-technology relationship without addressing political systems, many assumptions of phenomenological political philosophy appear idealistic in the era of AI governance. In this context, Heidegger posits that the ultimate goal of politics must be the "politics of Being" (Seinspolitik), working to strip the alienating impact of technology from human existence. As other scholars have argued, politics in the AI era reduces itself to human-to-technology or human-to-human relations, completely neglecting Being and the human lifeworld (Lebenswelt). Regarding the question of who rules, phenomenological theorists—who can scarcely be labeled traditional political philosophers—turn their attention to pre-modern republics. Thinkers like Feenberg and Aguilar emphasize democracy, while Dallmayr stresses global democracy. Conversely, Heidegger and Sokolowski criticizethe loss of subject autonomy within AI governance. They argue that the objective must be a return to pre-modern republics that are detached from technology and centered on human Being, allowing the autonomous subject to be liberated from the mathematical rationality of both liberal and authoritarian worlds. Pessimistic and critical phenomenologists maintain that these technologies create highly dysfunctional, undesirable scenarios, viewing AI governance as a dystopia, whereas moderate phenomenologists (such as Ihde, Hickman, Dallmayr, and Aguilar) attempt to establish control over the existing state of affairs. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Phenomenology, Artificial Intelligence, Heidegger, Values, Ethics | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
اسلامی، روحالله. (1393). رهایی یا انقیاد: فلسفۀ تکنولوژی اطلاعات در قرن بیست. تهران: تیسا.
بیستگی، میگل. (1389). هایدگر و امر سیاسی (مترجم: سیاوش جمادی). تهران: ققنوس.
ساکالوفسکی، رابرت. (1384). درآمدی بر پدیدارشناسی. تهران: گام نو.
هایدگر، مارتین. (1373). پرسش از تکنولوژی (مترجم: شاپور اعتماد). تهران: ارغنون.
هایدگر، مارتین. (1962م). پایان فلسفه (مترجم: احمدرضا معتمدی). تهران: نشر هرمس.
Aldea, A. S., Carr, D., & Heinämaa, S. (2022). Phenomenology as critique: Why method matters. New York: Routledge. Barney, N., & Lewis, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) governance. TechTarget. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/AI-governance Crawford, k. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Dallmayer, F. (2017). Critical phenomenology, cross-cultural theory, cosmopolitanism (F. Godrej, Ed.). New York: Routledge. Dreyfus, H. L (1988). What computers can't do: The limits of artificial intelligence. Roma: Armando Editore. Feenberg, A. (2005). Heidegger and marcuse: The catastrophe and redemption of history. New York: Routledge. Irwin, S, O’Neal. (2016). Digital media: Human–technology connection. London: Lexington Books. Jansen, J. (2022). Phenomenology and critique: On “mere” description and its normative dimensions (A. S. Aldea., Carr, D., & Heinämaa, S., Eds.). Phenomenology as Critique: Why Method Matters (pp. 45-55). New York: Routledge McGrath, M. B (2019). Philosophy and the Integrity of the Person: The Phenomenology of Robert Sokolowski. In book: The reception of Husserlian phenomenology in North America, pp.187-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99185-6_11 Mickunas, A., & Pilotta, J. (2023). A critical understanding of artificial intelligence: A phenomenological foundation. Ltd. Singapore: Bentham Science Publishers Pte. Risse, M. (2023 a). Brave new world: Political philosophy and AI. FIFTEEN EIGHTY FOUR: Academic perspectives from , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/01/brave-new-world-political-philosophy-and-ai/ Risse, M. (2023 b). Political Theory of the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodemeyer, L. M (2022). A Phenomenological Critique of Critical Phenomenology. New York: Routledge. Aldea, A. S., Carr, D., & Heinämaa, S. (Eds.).(2022). Phenomenology as Critique: Why Method Matters. New York: Routledge. Rosenberger, R. (2014). Postphenomenology and the Philosophy of Technology (D. M. Weiss, A. D. Propen, & C. E. Reid, Eds.). Design, Mediation, andthe Posthuman (p. 3). London: Lexington Books. Russell, S. J,. & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Hoboken: Prentice Hall is an imprnt of Pearson. Sokolowski, R. (1988). Natural and Artificial Intelligence. Daedalus, 117(1), pp. 45-64. Sokolowski, R. (2008). Phenomenology of the Human Person. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Tallberg, J., Erman, E., Furendal, M., & Geith, J. (2023). The Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence Next Steps for Empirical and Normative Research. epartment of Political Science, Stockholm University; Faculty of Law, Stockholm University; Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. Verbeek, P. -Paul. (2013). Resistance Is Futile: Toward a Non-Modern Democratization of Technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. Von, v., & Masís, J. (2015). The Primacy of Phenomenology over Cognitivism towards a Critique of the Computational Theory of Mind. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Graduiertenschule für die Geisteswissenschaften der Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg. Zimmermann, A.,Vredenburgh, K., & Lazar, S. (2022). The political philosophy of data and AI. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52, pp. 1–5. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 76 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 74 |
||