《莊子》思想常被貼上相對主義的標籤，因而遭受自我否定的質疑。在這脈絡下，劉昌元以觀點主義來定位《莊子》思想的相對性。蕭振聲則提出不同意見，認為《莊子》思想的相對性不但不會陷入自我否定的麻煩，甚至還支持了一套行動理論。兩者的主張聚焦於同一問題，卻得出截然不同的結論，讀者應如何看待？本文首先釐清觀點主義與《莊子》思想的光譜疊映，及其可能的落差；繼而，嘗試考察下一個問題──《莊子》思想可能作為人的行動理論嗎？本文試圖以策略干擾一詞，來詮釋《莊子》的行動模式。要之，《莊子》面對災禍頻仍、人心惶惶的亂世，且在全生葆真與權力批判的多重要求下，採取了以干擾為策略、即干擾即逍遙的行動方針。

The Zhuangzi has often been labeled a work of relativism, and as a result its self-denials have been questioned. C.Y. Liu 劉昌元 asserted that the relativistic thought of Zhuangzi is a kind of perspectivism, whereas Chun-sing Siu 蕭振聲advanced a different opinion, contending that the relativism of the Zhuangzi does not fall into self-denial but rather supports a theory of action. How should we consider the fact that these two scholars focused on the same issue yet came to different conclusions? In this article, I first clarify the commonalities and differences between perspectivism and the position advanced in the Zhuangzi. I then examine the problem of how the Zhuangzi can be read as a theory of human action, interpreting the approach to action in the Zhuangzi through the concept of ＂strategic interference＂ (celüe ganrao 策略干擾). In short, in the panic of troubled times when there occurred frequent disasters, the Zhuangzi taught people how to take action through ＂strategic interference,＂ or ＂interference as xiaoyao 逍遙,＂ in response to the demands to stay alive, remain true, and engage in political criticism.