《呂氏春秋》的中心思想是聚訟多年的重要問題，導致眾說紛紜的主要原因是此書材料十分豐富，不同說法幾乎都可以在書中找到根據，卻又不見得能夠貫通全書，結果不斷有人提出修訂或新說。要突破現有的困境，學者必須對選材範圍有更高的自覺，始能客觀地比較相關概念在文本詮釋上的有效程度，從而找出占有主導地位的觀念。本文正是沿此思路重新檢討胡適率先揭櫫的貴生思想，澄清它的觀念意涵和表述形式，試圖為莫衷一是的現況提供一條可行的出路。文章首先回顧過去有關雜家與中心思想的討論，繼而通過胡適和劉殿爵對貴生思想的不同論述，闡明引證範圍與詮釋效度的關係，並交代本文運用材料的層次架構；接著從〈貴生〉篇原文出發，尋繹它的基本主張，並針對學者對「生」與「欲」的不同理解，說明「六欲」的涵義，以及欲望的調節方法和適用範圍，解決過去詮釋上的幾個難點。在論述過程中，文章亦揭示了貴生思想憑藉相似內容和關鍵詞的互見貫穿〈十二紀〉篇章的方法，辨正了一些學者對《呂氏春秋》全書體例和行文邏輯的狹隘認知。這個互文結構顯示《呂氏春秋》所載諸家學說，既不是物理學式的「堆疊」，也不是化學式的「融合」，而是接近工程學上的「焊接」。若我們能從眾數的角度理解所謂中心思想，當更能認清此書的特質和價值。

The central idea of Lüshi chunqiu is an important issue that has been debated for centuries. The main reason for such divergent views is that this book is so rich in material, allowing researchers to find supporting evidence for almost any claims, which are not necessarily in full accord with the whole book. As a result, there remains much room for scholars to propose different amendments or even provide entirely new thoughts. To overcome the dilemma, researchers must become more conscious of the scope of materials to be used, so that they can objectively compare the validity of each relevant concept in the interpretation of texts and subsequently identify the dominant idea. It is along these lines that this article aims at reviewing the doctrine of “Guisheng” advocated by Hu Shi, clarifying its connotations and expressions, and hence providing a viable way out of the present state of disagreement. The article first reviews the previous discussion about the Miscellaneous School and the problem of central idea. Through Hu Shi and D. C. Lau’s different exposition of the idea of “Guisheng,” we demonstrate the relationship between the scope of citation and the validity of interpretation, and illustrate the hierarchy structure of the materials we use. Based on the original text of the Chapter of ‘Guisheng,’ we subsequently proceed to elucidate the meaning of “six desires,” their regulating method, as well as the scope of application. By delineating the different understandings of “life” and “desire,” we resolve several difficult points of interpretation over the years. During the discussion, the article also reveals the functions of similar contents and key words, with which the idea of “Guisheng” penetrates into the Chapters of ‘Twelve Chronicles,’ thus correcting the inappropriate understanding of the textual organization and narrative logic of Lüshi chunqiu suggested by a few scholars. The intertextual structure shows that the thoughts found in Lüshi chunqiu are neither physical “aggregation” nor chemical “synthesis,” but are close to “welding” in engineering. Only when we perceive the so-called central idea from a pluralistic perspective can the characteristics and value of this book be fully recognized.