本文以跨文化的角度對中西兩大哲人莊子與Aristotle之休閒觀作一探析。分析發現，莊子的逍遙概念與Aristotle的西方古典休閒觀具有相當程度的相容性，無論是莊子的「逍遙」概念，或是Aristotle的「schole（休閒）」概念，主要涵義都是無上的幸福快樂，精神上無所束縛、自由解放的情境，它們都象徵著人類所嚮往的理想境界、生命價值之所在。兩者同樣都屬非實用、非功利導向性質。非但如此，兩位哲學家所認爲通往這個理想境界的途徑也相仿；Aristotle認爲可透過「沉思冥想」，莊子則強調經由「心齋」、「坐忘」。Aristotie的「沉思冥想」可使人成爲超然的觀察者，進入類似莊子經由「心齋」、「坐忘」所達到的「無己」的「逍遙」境界。他們之間的基本差異在於對「理性」所扮演角色的觀點有所出入：Aristotle極端推崇「理性」，他所謂的「沉思冥想」指的就是純粹理性上的活動，並認爲將理性發揮到極致方能獲得真正的「休閒」；相對地，對莊子而言，「理性」反而會是通往的「道」的障礙，人必須超越這層理性障礙，方能進入「與道冥合」的「逍遙」境界。

The purpose of this study was to examine leisure philosophy from a cross-cultural perspective. Both parallels and differences of the classical Western conception of leisure (principally those of Aristotle) and the Taoist idea of hsiao yao (particularly those of Chuang Tzu) were presented and analyzed. This paper revealed that both Aristotle's idea of leisure (i.e. schole) and Chuang Tzu's idea of hsiao-yao have same denotations which are "the absolute freedom" and "the true hap piness." Whereas Aristotle believed that true leisure can be achieved through "rational" contemplation, Chuang Tzu held that hsiao yao can be achieved through "selfless" contemplation ("hsin chai," or "tso wang"). The author argued that Chuang Tzu's ideal hsiao yao has surpassed Aristotle's ideal leisure, for the former has transcended "rational faculty" that on which the later must still depend.