三十世紀以後的近代東方學術活動，幾乎不可避免地要面臨東、西學術語言的遭遇。然而，隨之而來的洋路格義象，卻也造成學術視域的誤解、澄清和重建之語言反省歷程。而在對道家形上學的詮釋過程中，正是其中明顯之一例。將牟宗三放在這個詮釋的歷程中來看，他顯然具有一個重要的視域革命之典範意義，亦即他企圖讓道家形上學的詮釋，跳離西方思辯形上學的視域，回歸東方實踐形上學的本位。並且由，進一步分判同屬東方實踐大傳統之下，儒釋道之間的存有論細微差異。本文試圖對牟宗三的道家形上學詮釋，加以批判式的反省與重建，一方面贊成他所提出的實踐形上學之重要性，另一方面則企圖超越境界形上學的論斷，並轉向海德格式的存有論之方向，最後，嘗試走向存有論與美學的整合道路。

In the twentieth century and after, more and more Asian scholars are forced to confront the cross-linguistic encounter between Eastern and Western academia. As a result of this encounter, using Western concepts to interpret Eastern thought has become a common practice in the academia on both sides. Intriguingly, while the practice itself has yielded instances of cultural misunderstanding, in response there has also been found critical efforts to clarify and to reconstruct the academic languages involved in those instances. The evolution of modern hermeneutics of Taoism is a case in point. Within this modern hermeneutic tradition, the works of Mou Zungsang undoubtedly signify a paradigm shift: Against the conventional practice to interpret Taoism through the prism of Western speculative metaphysics, Mou breaks new ground by bringing back the prism of Eastern practical metaphysics. On the basis of this new interpretation, Mou also makes a great contribution to the hermeneutics of Eastern practical philosophies by producing a critical reconstruction of Mou’s interpretation of Taoist metaphysics. While sharing Mou’s basic assumption about the importance of practical metaphysics, I propose to go beyond this assumption by turning to a Heideggerian alternative of ontology, so as to envisage a possible way to integrate ontology and aesthetics.