The characterization of wei-chin-hs'uan-hsSeh by most historians of Chinese philosophy is based on the theme discussed nearly by all philosophers in the Wei and Chin dynesties, i.e., the ontological problem of "being" and "nothing". All other characterizations of this trend of thought, such as the inclination of the philosophical position from Confucianism to Taoism, the highly abstract philosophical method of conceptual analysis, are unexceptionally derived from this cord characteristic. Naturally, this characteristic is applied by the historians to the demarcation of different schools and different periods of wei-chin-hsuan-hsueh. Chi Kang is un controversially one of the most important figures of wei-chin-hsuan-hsueh. Strangely, none of his writings has explicit relevance to the very theme of"being" and "nothing". This gives nise to the diversity of explanations of his appropriate position in wei-chin-hs'uan-hsiieh and the difficulty of a consistent and significant interpretation of his thought. In this paper, the distinction of "entertainment" and "discourse" will be introduced to show that this com mom characterization has overemphasized the theoretic "discourse" side, but negelected the practical "entertainment" side of Chinese philosophy. We will assume the strategy of interpretation by analysing some of Chi Kang's minor essays,-which are believed to be insignificant and mututally irrelevant in content but are consistent in its conceptual analysis, and its deconstructive style of argumentation. We explain this as Chi Kang's "entertainment", not "discourse" of Chuang Tzu's thought. From such an explanation, we will obtain a key for a consistent and significant interpretation of Chi Kang's thought and a more appropriate determination of his position in wei-chin-hsSan-hsueh.