筆者試圖說明莊子藉由叔山無趾對孔子的評斷：「天刑之，安可解」來說明孔子形象在莊書中的理論意義。本文以為就孔子自稱「天之戮民」，乃是違逆天道而受桎錮的人，不能如遊於方外者一樣，遊乎天地之間，他對「遊於方外」的價值觀及其生命形態有著充份的理解，但他不願是那樣的生命。在莊子的描繪中，孔子是自己決定不願走上逍遙路的，故曰「天刑之，安可解」。這解釋與郭象跡冥論的孔子形象完全相反。由於跡冥論的論點，近人牟宗三、高柏園皆有承續，因此，本文後半段又與跡冥論斟酌。本文反對跡冥論的理由是：一、它與原文不合；二、道德主體是不能「齊是非」的，因而也不可能入逍遙境界。

By analyzing the original sentence “tian xin zhi, an ke jie” (one is powerless to get rid of the punishment which is executed by Heaven), which is a comment on Confucius made by Shushan Wuzhi who is undoubtedly a representative of Zhuangzi’s view, the author attempts to elaborate the theoretical significance of Confucius’s image in the book of Zhuangzi. It will be argued in this paper that, given that Confucius declares himself as “tian zhi lu min” (a person who is fettered by Heaven), it clearly appears that he must first have a deep insight into the value of “you yu fang wai” (wandering outside the vulgar world), and that he can be said to finally deny such a life style just mentioned of his own free will. In other words, in what is drawn by Zhuangzi, it is Confucius’s own decision to go away from the road of spiritual freedom, and it is definitely the reason why the original sentence “tian xin zhi, an ke jie” makes sense. What is interpreted above is completely opposite to Confucius’s image mentioned in the Ji Ming Lun held by Guo Xiang. As Ji Ming Lun is received by modern scholars such as Mou Zongsan and Gao Boyuan, it is worthy to be discussed and that will be the task of the last part of this article. The reasons that Ji Ming Lun will be refused in this article include: (1) it is inconsistent with the original text; (2) moral subject is incapable of “qi shi fei” (equalizing what is right and what is wrong), and thus it is at the same time incapable of acquiring the spiritual freedom.