本文的目的，一方面，在批判周勛初與鄭良樹兩先生之韓非思想發展的三期說，另一方面則繼承兩位先生思想發展的觀點，提出二期說，並論述這一個新理論的可能性與證成的條件。兩先生的共同缺點是他們都是採取一種外於思想發展的觀點來為韓非思想分期。周先生混淆了自然生命的發展與思想生命的發展；鄭先生則更進一步地混淆思想生命的發展與外在國際局勢的發展。筆者以為，要證成這種思想之發展的觀點，就必須嚴格地一篇篇地分析《韓非子》各篇的問題、問題的解答、注意各篇所使用的概念，以及概念的內涵，其後再以一種思想發展的眼光，來聯繫五十五篇的問題、解答、概念與概念的內涵等等。只有透過問題與解答的轉折，我們才能看清韓非思想的發展。 本文檢討了處理《韓非子》書中矛盾思想的各種可能性。在提出理由排除《韓非子》書中有韓非前輩與後學的著作之後，本文討論了二期說之證成的條件。本文分析了「發展」之概念的內涵，並強調《韓非子》書中矛盾思想的兩端如果能構成一種發展關係，則這兩端之間的思想聯繫必須符合「發展」概念之內涵。本文顯示了：在《韓非子》諸篇中有黃老道家的政治思想，又有相信透過權力的徹底貫徹才能達成政治統治與政治領導的最高理想之思想。由於黃老道家的政治思想不斷地在後者的思想表達中被討論、被拒斥，並非後者在前者的思想表達中被討論、被拒斥，因此，唯一的可能就是去主張青年韓非是黃老道家的追隨者，而成熟韓非才是「任勢為治說」的建立者。

The purpose of the article is twofold. First, it criticizes the theories presented by Prof. Zhou Xunchu and Prof. Zheng Liangshu that Hanfeitzu's thought developed over three periods; second, it proposes a two-period theory, demonstrating the plausibility of such as theory and analyzing the conditions for its verification. A common difficulty of Prof. Zhou's and Prof. Zheng's theories is that both base their analyses on criteria foreign to Hanfei's thought. Prof. Zhou does not recognize the essential differences between natural life and human thoughts, and Prof. Zhen neglects the important distinction between the processes of natural life and the political transformations in Hanfei's time. The author is of the opinion that, to establish a development in the chapters of Hanfeitzu, one has no alternative but to analyze the questions posed and the answers offered in one chapter after another and then to chart the conceptual changes in terms of a development through all the chapters. This article proposes a two-period theory, asserting a development between a young and a mature Hanfei. Rather than dismissing inconsistencies in Hanfeitzu's theories as the contributions by forerunners or followers, it explains them as the product of a conceptual development. This article shows that the chapters of Hanfeitzu include both a follower of Huang-Lan Daoism and also a believer that the problems of political leadership and ruling can be best resolved by complete execution of power. Because the later criticizes the former and not vice-versa, we have no other alternative but to assume that the young Hanfei is a follower of Huang-Lao Daoism and the mature Hanfei is the creator of the new political philosophy.