長久以來，對張載思想的詮釋多分歧不定，意見不一。張載既可以被認為是理學家、唯心論者，也可以被認為是唯物主義者；各家各派，都可以從張載思想中擷取他們所要立論的資源。本文以為，對於張載思想詮釋的爭議，都集中在對其「氣」概念之闡揚不定上。因此，在本文中，筆者力圖說明以下各點：一、陳述各家各派對張載氣論解釋之分歧與其詮釋依據。二、釐清張載之氣並非一西方式的形而下之物質。三、比較張載之氣與亞里斯多德哲學中的物質因，並申論了二者之不同。論證完以上幾點後，本文預計可以達成以下之積極貢獻：一、確立了張載並非一西方式的唯物主義者。雖然本文主張「以氣為本」的路線去研究張載哲學，但卻主張當在道德心性的路線下去考察才是正確的路線；二、釐清張載之氣的獨特意義。且中國人的氣論從未如西方哲學般，分辨出一不變動的部分以為變動之部分之基礎。相反地，若以氣論而言，中國人所預設之氣無不在變動當中。本文認為，應將此點氣論之特性放回宋明理學之框架中重新討論；如此當可為宋明理學之討論開創一番新局面。

The explanations of Chuang Tzu's philosophy are always divergent. Chuang Tzu can be viewed as a Neo-Confucianist, an idealist, but also as a materialist. In this paper, we try to argue that the controversy over Chuang Tzu's thought is due to the varied understandings of his conception of Qi. Therefore, in this paper, we try hard to illustrate the following points: 1.To formularize different explanations about Chuang Tzu's concept of Qi and their hermeneutic basis. 2. To clarify that Qi is not the Western material. 3. To compare Chuang Tzu's Qi and Aristotle's causa materialis, and to show the dissimilarities of these two concepts. In conclusion, we can make some contributions. 1. To ascertain that Chuang Tzu's thought is not like the Western materialism. 2. To confirm the specific meaning of Chinese Qi. As a result, the academia might rethink the proper position of Chuang Tzu's Qi philosophy in Neo-Confucianism.