The Contemporary Deepening of Practical Dialectics: From the Paradigm of Material Production to the Paradigm of Meaning Reproduction

Hegel constructed the most systematically complete conceptual dialectics in modern philosophy, taking the self-unfolding of absolute spirit as the core driving force of dialectical movement. Yet, due to its ontological dogmatism, closed conception of history, and the existential dissolution of the individual, it became a sustained object of critique and deconstruction for subsequent philosophy. Through a paradigm revolution that "inverted" Hegel's framework, Marx pulled the foundation of dialectical movement down from the heavens to the earthly world, establishing a materialist dialectics centered on the mode of material production and accomplishing the first turn toward reality in dialectical dynamics. However, in later orthodox interpretations, economic reductionism, linear historical teleology, and the neglect of the subjective dimension of meaning have subjected it to persistent internal theoretical tensions and exposed the boundaries of its explanatory power. Various remedial efforts by Western Marxism and domestic scholarship have largely supplemented the relative autonomy of the superstructure while affirming the core status of material production, yet they have not advanced the theory to the point of reconstructing the core category of dialectical dynamics. Entering the technological age, the central contradiction of human civilization has gradually shifted from "material scarcity" to "meaning hollowing-out." New problems—algorithmic alienation, consensus breakdown, value nihilism, and insufficient systemic resilience—exceed the original explanatory framework of production dialectics. This paper proposes that a dialectics of meaning, with "the safeguarding of meaning reproduction" as its supreme meta-principle and the triadic cycle of "emergence–reflection–shaping" as its operating mechanism, constitutes a discernible third theoretical transformation in the evolution of dialectical dynamics. This principle is justified through the practical-rational postulate of performative contradiction and functions as an inescapable negative baseline norm for all meaning-activities. It replaces the closed absolute circle with an open dynamic cycle, substitutes a baseline criterion for linear historical teleology, and places the individual's autonomy of meaning at the center in place of the totality's historical instrumentality. While firmly upholding the fundamental standpoint of Marx's practical dialectics, it also responds to the novel existential predicaments of the technological age, providing a unified philosophical framework for the calibration of technological ethics, the diagnosis of complex systems, and the individual's quest for existential grounding. 黑格尔构建了近代哲学中体系最完备的概念辩证法，将绝对精神的自我展开作为辩证运动的核心动力，却也因本体论的独断性、历史观的封闭性与存在论的个体消解困境，成为后世哲学持续批判与拆解的对象。马克思通过 “头足倒置” 的范式革命，将辩证运动的根基从天国拉回尘世，确立了以物质生产方式为核心的唯物辩证法，实现了辩证动力学的第一次现实化转向。然而，在后续的正统阐释中，经济还原论、线性历史目的论与主体意义维度的偏失，使其始终面临理论内部的张力与现实解释力的边界；西方马克思主义与国内学界的诸多修补方案，多在肯定物质生产核心地位的前提下补充上层建筑的相对独立性，尚未将理论推进至辩证动力核心范畴的重构层面。 进入技术时代，人类文明的核心矛盾逐步从 “物质匮乏” 转向 “意义掏空”，算法异化、共识分裂、价值虚无、系统韧性不足等新型问题，超出了生产辩证法的原生解释框架。本文提出，以 “意义再生产保障” 为最高元原则，以 “涌现 - 反思 - 塑造” 三元循环为运行机制的意义辩证法，构成辩证动力学演进历程中可被辨识的第三次理论形态跃迁。该原则基于践言冲突的实践理性公设得以证成，是所有意义活动不可回避的否定性底线规范。它以开放的动态循环替代封闭的绝对圆圈，以底线标尺替代线性的历史目的，以个体意义自主权为核心替代总体性的历史工具，既坚守了马克思实践辩证法的根本立场[1]，又回应了技术时代的新型生存困境，为技术伦理校准、复杂系统诊断与个体安身立命提供了统一的哲学框架。