本文旨在闡述業師趙雅博教授對先秦十子思想的一些評 論。他認為老子要人「絕學棄智」，卻沒有看到知欲學智的益處，這 是老子的錯誤。莊子忽視了「道」與「物」的可被認知性以及人的認 知能力，這不能不說是一種缺點。列子只重視肉體的快樂，忽略精神 的悦樂，其宿命論既有害於人類，又有害於自己。孔子的思想缺乏形 上學，欠缺對人的根源的探討與說明，始終沒有一個完整的體系。孟 子的性善說只能就倫理行為的觀點才可以探討，就本體觀點而言，則 無可討論。孟子並沒有把知識與實踐加以分開，這也是一種錯誤。荀 子對「性」的定義，並未涉及形上本質，他否認性善，沒有看到人性 的全體，實為一偏之見；尤其是，未能認清倫理之善與形上之善的區 別，更是一大缺失。墨子的非儒、非樂、薄喪，都有些矯枉過正。在 堅白論上，後期墨家經上派主張「盈堅白」，經下派則主張「離堅白」， 兩者觀點分裂，並不一致。公孫龍子主張「別同異，離堅白」，他將 兩個同性質的物加以分離，明顯是一種錯誤；他把抽象概念「馬」當 成具體的此馬彼馬’而肯定「白馬非馬」’這是位其非位’犯了唯謂 的錯。此外，公孫龍子又說「雞足三，牛羊足五」，這顯然是混觀念 與實際為一談。《呂氏春秋》折中了儒、道、墨、法、名諸家的思想， 沒能在總結諸子百家的基礎上形成一個新思想體系。韓非子反對「法 先王」，反對復古，主張變，主張「不法常可」，但是又倡導「君人 者乃常道，不可變」，這是自相矛盾。韓非子否定形上真理與仁義之 德，在人主的治國上，一直以功利為先，如此一來，即使有完美的 「法」、「術」、「勢」相結合的法治理論體系，也一樣會陷入治理 的悲劇中。

This paper expounds Prof. Albert Chao’s critique of ten pre-Ch’in era philosophers. He thinks that Lao-tzu was wrong when he discarded knowledge and wisdom. Chuang-tzu neglected the cognitive capacity of humans as well as the fact that the Tao and things can be understood. Lieh-tzu only emphasized physical pleasure and neglected the pleasures of the mind; furthermore, his determinism was a pessimistic concept harmful to humanity and himself. Kung-tzu’s thought lacks metaphysics, fails to account for the origin of humans, and did not develop into a system. Meng-tzu’s view of the good in human nature is restricted to the discussion of moral behaviour, it is not possible to discuss it in ontological terms. Hsün-tzu’s definition of ‘nature’ does not refer to a metaphysical substance, his denial of the good in human nature was biased because he neglected the totality of human nature. Mo-tzu’s rejection of Confucianism, music, and lavish funeral rites had its corrective influence, but later schools of Mohism were divided. Kung-sun Lung tzu’s separation of two things that have the same nature was wrong, and he confused real object and abstract concept in his discourse on the white horse. The Lü-shih Ch’un-ch’iu contained a compromise between Confucian, Taoist, Mohist, and Legalist thought, however, due to the divergent background of its contributors, it could not provide a new system of thought. Han Feitzu’s stance was contradictory, since he opposed the notion of emulating the ancient kings and advocated change but at the same time also emphasized the institution of the ruler. He renounced metaphysical truth and the virtue of righteousness, and advocated utilitarianism as principle of government; despite his system of legal theory, he still was unable to avoid the tragedy of governance.