薛蕙《老子集解》的最大特色，即在於廣泛批評前人對於老子思想的研究與見解。其中最引人囑目的，就是對於二程與朱熹老學思想的相關評議與駁正。因此，本論文即以薛蕙澄清程、朱老學思想之誤解為論述核心，藉由他所提出的「老子非竊弄闔闢之術」、「楊朱之學不盡合於老子」、「老子之學非獨任虛無而已」、「申、韓少恩非原於道德之意」四個向度，與程、朱老學進行充分的對話與討論。事實上，此四項論點乃以「老子非竊弄闔闢之術」為前提的，因為其他三點的提出，都與此前提有著深密的關係。程、朱老學的最大誤解，就在於以為老子耍權詐、存私心。因此，他們視老子之學與申韓之術為同一基調，故有申、韓少恩源自老子的說法。而朱熹的「楊朱之學出於老子」，則是將楊朱「為我」之說與老子「欲成其私」合觀的結果。老子的「無為」，朱子以為是「全不事事」、「不要與事物接」，而此亦只是「欲得退步占姦」的智巧。而程子雖則注意到了「無為」、「有為」的密切關係，然而其以「當有為而以無為為之」釋之，則又落入用其私心的機巧，遂使「無為」成為一種出於虛矯的、有心的「無為」。凡此，明顯看出程、朱老學以入於權詐作為主要的理解基點，與老子思想的原始本色，距離更遠了。薛蕙在《老子集解》中逐一澄清，以求回歸老子義理精神的方向，故此書對於程、朱老學觀點的多所批評，確實有其值得認真探究的價值。

Variorum Lao Tse, a commentary authored by Hsuei Hei (a scholar of the Ming Dynasty), had extensive criticism of former scholars’ notions of Lao Tse School. The most impressive argument was his refutation of the Cheng brothers and Chu Hsi. Cheng & Chu held negative views on Lao Tse, and took him to be tricky and selfish. They considered Lao Tse the same as Shen & Han (the legalists), and attributed the ruthlessness of the latter to the selfishness of the former. Further, Chu Hsi drew a parallel between the “self-preservation” of Yang Chu (the egoist) and the “selfhood” of Lao Tse. The “inaction” asserted by Lao Tse was misinterpreted as “idleness” and “retireness”, which was an artifice to make concessions in order to gain advantages. The Cheng brothers had noticed the close relationship between “inaction” and “action”, though they had failed to have an insight into its true meaning. In Cheng’s point of view, “inaction” was a pretense with an intention of “action”. Obviously, Cheng & Chu took Lao Tse theory as political trickery. Hsuei Hei brought forth the following arguments against Cheng & Chu’s criticism of Lao Tse: 1. Lao Tse did not juggle with political tactics; 2. Yang Chu’s egoism did not accord with Lao Tse theory; 3. Lao Tse theory was not exclusively attributed to nihilism; 4. The ruthlessness that was the feature of Shen & Han was not originated from morals.