「氣」發展為中哲學史上重要的理論概念，和黃老道家的推闡有密切關係。先秦儒、道之宗──孔、者兩家，都少言「氣」其「氣」義也較為質樸。到了儒家的虛、荀與道的《莊子．至樂》、〈知北遊〉，論「氣」始多；其所論「氣」，和《管子》四篇一系的稷下黃老道家有相當的關係。孟荀和《管子》四篇都談「心」，也都以「氣」論心，相關理論中的文字、內容多相應，《荀．解蔽》所言心術且與《管子》四篇相合。唯孟子究為儒家，其論「氣」之充養，以道德之實踐為內容，以積聚與提昇(益)為方法，不似《管子》四篇以道家清、靜、虛、一之清除、沉澱(損)為方法。《荀子．解蔽》論「心」雖似《管子》四篇之虛、一、靜，其『治氣』則歸結於「禮」與「師法」之儒家本色。《莊子．至樂》與〈知北遊〉以「氣」為萬物變與生死之基元，則因《莊子》外、雜篇本多老子後學，尤其黃老道家之論，其與《管子》四篇之氣化論相應，應是一證。

The reason why “Qi” becomes an important theoretical concept in the history of Chinese philosophy is closed related to Huang-Lao Daoists’ promotion. The masters of Confucianism and Daoism in the Pre-Qin Period, namely Confucius and Lao Zi, didn’t speak so much about “Qi”, and the meaning of “Qi” was somewhat modest. It’s not until the times of Mencisu and Xun Zi, the Confucians, and Zhuang Zi, the Daoist, that these two philosophies started to address more about “Qi,” while their statements about “Qi” were closely related to Huang-Lao Daoists’ discourse in the four chapters of Guan Zi Mencius, Guan Zi and Guan Zi discussed about “Xin” (mind) and also addressed the issue of “Qi” from the perspective of Xin. We can find many corresponding texts and arguments among them, and Xun Zi is similar to Guan Zi in the discourse on Xin. Nevertheless, Mencius and Xun Zi are, after all, Confucians, and their arguments are somewhat distinct from those of Zhuang Zi’s, who is basically Huang-Lao Daoist.