王夫之是張載哲學最為重要的闡釋者。在研究張載思想於 明清儒學的發展脈絡時，《張子正蒙注》更是當代最常徵引的作品。 雖船山與橫渠是否屬同一哲學型態，學者已有爭議。但泰半都肯定船 山對張載哲學的闡發。勞思光卻獨排眾議，批判船山既未能解決張載 天道論所遺留的困境，反而由於強將存有秩序套用在道德秩序上，使 人的主體自由淪為天道氣化律則中的假象。勞氏為學貫中西的哲學 家，其論當非無稽。可惜學界對勞氏的批判尚未有較全面的回應。故 本文先勾勒勞氏的論述架構，再以當代船山學研究為基礎，反思勞氏 的批判論據。

Wang Fuzhi was the most significant interpreter of Zhang Zai's philosophies. During the development of Confucianism in the Ming and Qing dynasties, Zhangzi Zheng Meng Zhu (Commentary on Zhang Zai’s “Rectifying the Youth”) was most frequentlycited to study Zhang's philosophies. Although no consensus has been reached concerning whether Wang and Zhang shared the same school of thought, most acknowledge Wang's contributions in elucidating Zhang's philosophies. Nevertheless, Lao Sze-Kwang contended otherwise, criticizing Wang for not solving the questions that were left unanswered in Zhang's Tian Dao Lun (Theory of the Way of Heaven) and viewing existing order as moral order, falsely turning people's subjective freedom into the way and principles of heaven. As a philosopher familiar with both Chinese and Western philosophies, Lao's comments were not unfounded. However, comprehensive scholarly comments in response to Lao's criticisms remain scarce. Therefore, this study first discussed Lao's arguments and subsequently explored contemporary studies of Wang Fuzhi's School of Thought to examine Lao's criticisms.