本文主要處理魏晉時代莊學的兩大重鎮阮籍與郭象對莊子思想之批判。本文注意到阮、郭二人對莊子思想同時都有負面的評價，而且批評莊子的方向正好相反。阮籍對當時的政治社會極度厭惡，企圖從中抽離而返於太古淳樸的神仙世界；因此批評莊子「猶未聞夫太始之論，玄古之微言」，認為莊子未能超脫現實的社會，復返於至德之世，因此貶抑「莊周之書何足道哉！」。而郭象則相反的因為依附當時的統治者，塑造了一個「身處廟堂之中而心無異於山林之外」的體用一如的聖王典型，特別強調不必遠離「名教」，亦可得「自然」。因此郭象反而批評莊子「無會而獨應」，認為莊子有「體」而無「用」，不能即入於物事之中展現其聖人體用一如的境界。阮、郭二人對莊子無法有相應的理解，原因在於對時代環境完全不同的反應。在魏晉時代不理想的政治氛圍的壓力扭曲之下，阮、郭二人對莊子的批判其實都是一種「抽離」意識，而其批判視域之反差則來自於政治立場的不同。

This article focuses on the reverse interpretations on Chuang-Tze(莊子) by Ruan-ji(阮籍) and Guo-siang(郭象), who were important annotators at Wei-Jin age(魏晉時代). Ruan-ji criticized that Chuang-Tze could not break away from the secular trouble world. And Guo-siang criticized Chuang-Tze could not identify himself with the secular world. Both Ruan and Guo were under the impression that Chuang-Tzewere not the supreme figure concerning life realm. Ruan-ji abominated present political world, and escaped to a fictitious celestial garden. On converse way, Guo-siang wish to assembled the intellects back to the political circles. Different political standpoints issued from Ruan and Guo brought about different interpretations on Chuang-Tze. That's the research point of this article.