神马作文网求一篇英汉对照的有关于庄子，或道家思想，或庄子的虚静说，或茶道的理论性文章
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：神马作文网作业帮 分类：综合作业 时间：2024/11/10 16:58:00
求一篇英汉对照的有关于庄子，或道家思想，或庄子的虚静说，或茶道的理论性文章
英文单词不少于5000个，最好是西方学者研究，毕业英文翻译急用，谢谢！拜托各位高手大大啊 ！
我要的是中英对照的哦，谢谢啦，英文和中文都要有的！！
英文单词不少于5000个，最好是西方学者研究，毕业英文翻译急用，谢谢！拜托各位高手大大啊 ！
我要的是中英对照的哦，谢谢啦，英文和中文都要有的！！
庄子与惠子游於濠梁之上 庄子曰 儵鱼出游 从容 是 鱼之樂也
惠子曰 子 非鱼 安知鱼之樂
庄子曰 子 非我 安知我不知鱼之樂
惠子曰 我非子 固不知子矣 子固非鱼也 子之不知鱼之樂 全矣
庄子曰 请循其本 子曰汝安知鱼樂云者 旣已知吾知之而问我 我知之濠上也
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the dam of the Hao Waterfall when Zhuangzi said, "See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That's what fish really enjoy!"
Huizi said, "You're not a fish — how do you know what fish enjoy?"
Zhuangzi said, "You're not I, so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"
Huizi said, "I'm not you, so I certainly don't know what you know. On the other hand, you're certainly not a fish — so that still proves you don't know what fish enjoy!"
Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy — so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao."
----------------
Zhuangzi's philosophy
In general, Zhuangzi's philosophy is mildly skeptical, arguing that our life is limited and the amount of things to know is unlimited. To use the limited to pursue the unlimited, he said, was foolish. Our language and cognition in general presuppose a dao to which each of us is committed by our separate past—our paths. Consequently, we should be aware that our most carefully considered conclusions might seem misguided had we experienced a different past. "Our heart-minds are completed along with our bodies." Natural dispositions to behavior combine with acquired ones—including dispositions to use names of things, to approve/disapprove based on those names and to act in accordance to the embodied standards. Thinking about and choosing our next step down our dao or path is conditioned by this unique set of natural acquisitions.
Zhuangzi's thought can also be considered a precursor of relativism in systems of value. His relativism even leads him to doubt the basis of pragmatic arguments (that a course of action preserves our lives) since this presupposes that life is good and death bad. In the fourth section of "The Great Happiness" (至乐 zhìlè, chapter 18), Zhuangzi expresses pity to a skull he sees lying at the side of the road. Zhuangzi laments that the skull is now dead, but the skull retorts, "How do you know it's bad to be dead?"
Another example about two famous courtesans points out that there is no universally objective standard for beauty. This is taken from Chapter 2 (齐物论 qí wù lùn) "On Arranging Things", or "Discussion of Setting Things Right" or, in Burton Watson's translation, "Discussion on Making All Things Equal".
Men claim that Mao [Qiang] and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream; if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run. Of these four, who knows how to fix the standard of beauty in the world? (2, tr. Watson 1968:46)
However, this subjectivism is balanced by a kind of sensitive holism in the conclusion of the section called "The Happiness of Fish" (鱼之乐, yúzhīlè). The names have been changed to pinyin romanization for consistency:
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the dam of the Hao Waterfall when Zhuangzi said, "See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That's what fish really enjoy!"
Huizi said, "You're not a fish — how do you know what fish enjoy?"
Zhuangzi said, "You're not I, so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"
Huizi said, "I'm not you, so I certainly don't know what you know. On the other hand, you're certainly not a fish — so that still proves you don't know what fish enjoy!"
Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy — so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao." (17, tr. Watson 1968:188-9)
[edit] The butterfly dream
Another well-known part of the book, which is also found in Chapter 2, is usually called "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly" (庄周梦蝶 Zhuāng Zhōu mèng dié). Again, the names have been changed to pinyin romanization for consistency:
Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi. Between Zhuangzi and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. (2, tr. Burton Watson 1968:49)
This hints at many questions in the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and epistemology. The name of the passage has become a common Chinese idiom, and has spread into Western languages as well. It appears, inter alia, as an illustration in Jorge Luis Borges' famous essay "A New Refutation of Time", and may have inspired H. P. Lovecraft's 1918 short story "Polaris".
Zhuangzi's philosophy was very influential in the development of Chinese Buddhism, especially Chán (also known as Zen).
[edit] Anarchy
According to Murray Rothbard, Zhuangzi was "perhaps the world's first anarchist"; Zhuangzi said, the world "does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed," and, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." Rothbard claims that Zhuangzi was the first to work out the idea of spontaneous order, before Proudhon and Hayek.[1]
Alan Watts, who in his mature and later years was sympathetic to minarchical libertarianism, declared that Zhuangzi was a libertarian.[citation needed]
[edit] Evolution
In Chapter 18, Zhuangzi also mentions life forms have an innate ability or power (机) to transform and adapt to their surroundings. While his ideas don't give any solid proof or mechanism of change such as Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin, his idea about the transformation of life from simple to more complex forms is along the same line of thought. Zhuangzi further mentioned that humans are also subject to this process as humans are a part of nature.[2]
-Points that Zhuangzi makes-
everything is everything
there is no good or bad, only thinking makes it so
The world around us may be perceived as an illusion from our senses our experiences and our interpretations, thus illusions are irrelevant to conclude a definite right or wrong way.
Death is just a passage of the illusion of life.
[edit] Translations
The Zhuangzi text is widely regarded as both deeply insightful in thought and as an achievement of the Chinese poetical essay form. It uses the Chinese language in complex, multi-layered, and often playful ways, and is notoriously difficult to translate. Nevertheless, some sinologists have tried. There are complete English translations of all thirty-three chapters by Frederic Balfour, James Legge, Herbert Giles, James Ware, Burton Watson, Martin Palmer, Victor H. Mair, Wang Rongpei, and Nina Correa. There are selected translations of the seven "inner chapters" by Fung Yu-lan, Burton Watson, Gia-Fu Feng, A. C. Graham, Thomas Cleary, and David Hinton. There is also a translation of the seven "inner chapters" and twelve additional chapters by Jerome Seaton and Sam Hamill. There are interpretations of selected Zhuangzi passages by Thomas Merton and Brian Bruya. Graham's is, to date, the most academically thorough, but Watson's is highly praised for its poetic style. Mair's translation also has its highlights, including his decision to translate the poetic parts of the text into English poetry.
思想渊源
世以「老庄」并称，庄子和老子都是道家的代表人物。当然庄子的思想是承继於老子的。相同点主要在「道法自然」的观点中，庄子说「天有大美而不言……是故至人无为，大圣不作，观於天地之谓也。还有就是无为、反对战争等观点。在养生观点上，虽然老庄都谈养生，但庄子更为重视， 《让王》中有「两臂重於天下」。
但老庄之间还是有区别的。老子的学说，除了强调自然的一面以外，还有讲权术的一面。老子说「柔弱胜刚强，《老子》中也处处强调这一点。所以后来法家的韩非也援引《老子》。而庄子抛弃了老子思想中讲权术的一面。章太炎的《论诸子学》中有「其术似与老子相同，其心乃於老子绝异。故《天下篇》历叙诸家，己与关尹、老聃裂分为二。其褒之以『至极』，尊之以『博大真人』者，以其自然之说，为己所取法也。其裂分为二者，不欲以老子之权术自污也。」
再道物关系上，老子和庄子也有不同。《老子·二十五章》中有「道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物。」庄子也认为道生万物，但庄子强调道在物中，认为道无所不在，甚至「在蝼蚁」「在屎溺」。
[编辑] 政治主张
庄子和儒墨有一点很大的不同，儒墨推崇圣人，而庄子说「圣人生而大盗起」。庄子认为圣人的主义学说不过是「窃国大盗」的工具罢了。其中的典型例子就是田成子。「田成子一旦杀其君而盗其国，所盗者岂独其国邪？并与其圣知之法而盗之……窃齐国，并与其圣知之法一守其盗贼之身。」对於圣人，庄子批评「黄帝尚不能全德……尧不慈，舜不孝，[[禹]]偏枯，汤放其主，武王伐纣。」，说孔子是「鲁之巧伪人」。庄子还说「凶德有五，中德为首」，所谓「中德」就是有心为德，有心为德就要虚伪，「日出多伪，士民安取不伪。」，会导致天下大乱。庄子还对圣人学说的积极性怀疑，认为圣人可以使一人变好，也使三人变坏。另外，庄子反对儒家的等级观念，儒家说「君君臣臣父父子子」，庄子认为「道通为一」，认为道在万物，万物平等。
对於治国，庄子反对儒家的以仁义治国和法家的以刑罚治国。庄子认为儒家的仁义礼乐违背人性，会使百姓「失其朴」。对於刑罚治国，「昔者尧治天下，不赏而民劝，不罚而民畏。今子赏罚而民且不仁，德自此衰，刑自此立，后世之乱自此始矣。」。庄子反对儒家和法家的治国方法的核心，是以知治国。庄子认为知是「争之器」，而且知往往会被大盗所利用，所谓「盗亦有道」便是如此。对於以知治国。庄子说「大乱之本，必生於尧舜之间，其末存乎千世之后。千世之后，其必有人与人相食者也。」
所以，庄子与老子一样，主张无为治国，任其自然，认为「绝圣弃知而天下大治」，君主要「无容私」，「汝游心於淡，合气与漠，顺物自然而无容私焉，而天下治矣。」。庄子在《庄子》中描写过他心中的「至德之世」，「不尚贤，不使能，上如标枝，民如野鹿。端正而不知以为义，相爱而不知以为仁，实而不知以为忠，当而不知以为信，蠢动而相使，不以为赐。是故行而无迹，事而无传。」
处世哲学
庄子认为人活在世上，犹如「游於羿之彀中」，到处充满危险。羿指君主，彀指君主的刑罚和统治手段。对於君主的残暴，庄子是一再强调的，「回闻卫君，其年壮，其行独；轻用其国，而不见其过；轻用民死，死者以国量乎泽若蕉，民其无如矣。」。所以庄子不愿去做官，因为他认为伴君如伴虎，只能「顺」。「汝不知夫养虎者乎！不敢以生物与之，为其杀之之怒也；不敢以全物与之，为其决之之怒；时其饥饱，达其怒心。虎之与人异类而媚养己者，顺也；故其杀者，逆也。」还要防止马屁拍到马脚上，「夫爱马者，以筐盛矢，以蜄盛溺。适有蚊虻仆缘，而拊之不时，则缺衔毁首碎胸。」伴君之难，可见一斑。庄子认为人生应是追求自由。
与佛教相类似的，庄子也认为人生有悲的一面。《齐物论》中有「一受其成形，不忘以待尽。与物相刃相靡，其行尽如驰，而莫之能止，不亦悲乎！终身役役而不见其成功，苶然疲役而不知其所归，可不哀邪！人谓之不死，奚益！其形化，其心与之然，可不谓大哀乎？人之生也，固若是芒乎？其我独芒，而人亦有不芒者乎？」 庄子认为如果能做到「齐物」，那麼他便能达到「逍遥」的境界。这是庄子哲学中另一个重要概念，这是个体精神解放的境界，即无矛盾地生存於世界之中。庄子并不否认矛盾，只是强调主观上对矛盾的摆脱。庄子用「无为」来解释这一术语，与老子不同，这里「无为」是指心灵不被外物所拖累的自由自在，无拘无束的状态。这种状态，也被称为「无待」，意为没有相对的东西。这时，人们抛弃了功名利禄，「乘天地之正，而御六气之辩，以游无穷。」这句被普遍认为《逍遥游》一篇主旨，同时也是《庄子》一书的主旨。这是一种心与「道」合一的境界。
庄子认为一般人很虚伪，「人心险於山川，难於知天。天犹有春秋冬夏旦暮之期，人者厚貌深情。」。他批评儒家「以仁义撄人之心」，这样会导致「天下脊脊大乱。而君主的专制统治和对知识的爱好，只会使人心更加败坏，「民之於利甚勤，子有杀父，臣有杀君，正昼为盗，日中穴阫。」
流沙河认为，庄子的为人主要有四点，「一曰立场，站在环中。二曰方法，信奉无为。三曰理想，追慕泽稚。四曰修养，紧守心斋。」[27]
所谓环中，就是不持有任何立场。《内篇·齐物论》中有「得其环中，以应无穷」，《杂篇·则阳》中有「得其环中以随成」。无为在《庄子》中经常出现，庄子认为无论治国还是做人，都要无为。但无为颇难解释，流沙河认为是「伪」或是「人为」的意思。「泽雉十步一啄，百步一饮，不蕲畜乎樊中」[28]，是追求自由。「若一志，无听之以耳而听之以心，无听之以心而听之以气！听止於耳，心止於符。气也者，虚而待物者也。唯道集虚。虚者，心斋也。」[29]，所谓心斋就是要排除心中的种种杂念。
[编辑] 哲学思想
庄子的哲学思想大体可归纳为以道为实体的本体论、「万物齐一」的相对主义认识论，并由此引发出其独有的主观唯心主义倾向和相对主义诡辩倾向。这种本於自然的人性论与伦理观，为后世的中国知识分子提供了另一种生存方式和价值观念的可能性。庄子的哲学提倡破除肉身我与认知我，追求超然物外的审美态度，於事於物不著痕迹。
在庄子哲学中，「道」是宇宙的本体，是一个无限的概念。由「道」而产生了天地万物，「道」本身是万物之源。 「夫道有情有信，无为无形，可传而不可受，可得而不可见，自本自根，未有天地，自古以固存，神鬼神帝，生天生地。」（《庄子·大宗师》）。人如果得「道」，即获得了无限和自由。
庄子「道通为一」（《齐物论》）的思想和近代 Teilhard de Chardin 的哲学思想在把宇宙看成一个有机整体的这一点上是相同的。这种看法比起牛顿把宇宙看成像弹子球撞击那样的机械论思想，显然是更近於二十世纪的科学了。
[编辑] 文学贡献
老子认为「道可道，非常道」[30]，庄子也认为道不可言。但道不可言，又不得不言，所以庄子采用的是「巵言」的方法，「寓言十九，重言十七，巵言日出，和以天倪。」[31]这种方式让庄子的思想像水一般，不会惧怕后人的肢解。同时让他的观点不会被历史湮没。不同的时期拜读，会得更新的意义。庄周梦蝶、混沌开窍、庖丁解牛等都是其出色的寓言。庄子的文字，堪称中国文学史上的一宛奇葩，将先秦散文推向了一个新的高峰。
相对老子而言，庄子的思想倾向於对艺术及自由的追求。从庄周梦蝶、濠梁之辩（子非鱼安知鱼之乐）等事情可见。
[编辑] 对后世的影响
虽然不像儒家一样被官方奉为经典，但庄子却对后世的中国有著重大的影响：
「小国寡民」、「逍遥适己」的思想成为大一统帝国状态下的中国文人保持思想自由和精神独立的重要支柱及理论基础。
「庄骚传统」对中国古代文学，特别是浪漫主义和田园派文学产生了深刻的影响。
「盗亦有道」，后世非官方社会的重要行为准则，源出《庄子·外篇·胠箧第十》
在《庄子》一书中，对儒家如孔子时常嘲讽。孔子时常成了茫然的一位老师。后世，司马光曾写过道家的著作，也专门研究过庄子，但他也公开表示，自己并不喜欢道家学说，还是以儒家为主。
[编辑] 道教中的庄子
南华真人宝诰
志心皈命礼
太清玄嗣，漆园隐吏
经著南华，行合天心
辅玄赞教，无名无己
混合形神，出入太虚
师长桑真人而南华修道，服食北肓火丹於抱犊飞升
乘天地之正，御六气之辩
与万物齐同，共鲲鹏遨游
德润天下，道济万世
逍遥无待，齐同生死
大圣大仁大孝大慈太极闱编郎微妙元通南华真君畅玄济世大天尊
惠子曰 子 非鱼 安知鱼之樂
庄子曰 子 非我 安知我不知鱼之樂
惠子曰 我非子 固不知子矣 子固非鱼也 子之不知鱼之樂 全矣
庄子曰 请循其本 子曰汝安知鱼樂云者 旣已知吾知之而问我 我知之濠上也
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the dam of the Hao Waterfall when Zhuangzi said, "See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That's what fish really enjoy!"
Huizi said, "You're not a fish — how do you know what fish enjoy?"
Zhuangzi said, "You're not I, so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"
Huizi said, "I'm not you, so I certainly don't know what you know. On the other hand, you're certainly not a fish — so that still proves you don't know what fish enjoy!"
Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy — so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao."
----------------
Zhuangzi's philosophy
In general, Zhuangzi's philosophy is mildly skeptical, arguing that our life is limited and the amount of things to know is unlimited. To use the limited to pursue the unlimited, he said, was foolish. Our language and cognition in general presuppose a dao to which each of us is committed by our separate past—our paths. Consequently, we should be aware that our most carefully considered conclusions might seem misguided had we experienced a different past. "Our heart-minds are completed along with our bodies." Natural dispositions to behavior combine with acquired ones—including dispositions to use names of things, to approve/disapprove based on those names and to act in accordance to the embodied standards. Thinking about and choosing our next step down our dao or path is conditioned by this unique set of natural acquisitions.
Zhuangzi's thought can also be considered a precursor of relativism in systems of value. His relativism even leads him to doubt the basis of pragmatic arguments (that a course of action preserves our lives) since this presupposes that life is good and death bad. In the fourth section of "The Great Happiness" (至乐 zhìlè, chapter 18), Zhuangzi expresses pity to a skull he sees lying at the side of the road. Zhuangzi laments that the skull is now dead, but the skull retorts, "How do you know it's bad to be dead?"
Another example about two famous courtesans points out that there is no universally objective standard for beauty. This is taken from Chapter 2 (齐物论 qí wù lùn) "On Arranging Things", or "Discussion of Setting Things Right" or, in Burton Watson's translation, "Discussion on Making All Things Equal".
Men claim that Mao [Qiang] and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream; if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run. Of these four, who knows how to fix the standard of beauty in the world? (2, tr. Watson 1968:46)
However, this subjectivism is balanced by a kind of sensitive holism in the conclusion of the section called "The Happiness of Fish" (鱼之乐, yúzhīlè). The names have been changed to pinyin romanization for consistency:
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the dam of the Hao Waterfall when Zhuangzi said, "See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That's what fish really enjoy!"
Huizi said, "You're not a fish — how do you know what fish enjoy?"
Zhuangzi said, "You're not I, so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"
Huizi said, "I'm not you, so I certainly don't know what you know. On the other hand, you're certainly not a fish — so that still proves you don't know what fish enjoy!"
Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy — so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao." (17, tr. Watson 1968:188-9)
[edit] The butterfly dream
Another well-known part of the book, which is also found in Chapter 2, is usually called "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly" (庄周梦蝶 Zhuāng Zhōu mèng dié). Again, the names have been changed to pinyin romanization for consistency:
Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi. Between Zhuangzi and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. (2, tr. Burton Watson 1968:49)
This hints at many questions in the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and epistemology. The name of the passage has become a common Chinese idiom, and has spread into Western languages as well. It appears, inter alia, as an illustration in Jorge Luis Borges' famous essay "A New Refutation of Time", and may have inspired H. P. Lovecraft's 1918 short story "Polaris".
Zhuangzi's philosophy was very influential in the development of Chinese Buddhism, especially Chán (also known as Zen).
[edit] Anarchy
According to Murray Rothbard, Zhuangzi was "perhaps the world's first anarchist"; Zhuangzi said, the world "does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed," and, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." Rothbard claims that Zhuangzi was the first to work out the idea of spontaneous order, before Proudhon and Hayek.[1]
Alan Watts, who in his mature and later years was sympathetic to minarchical libertarianism, declared that Zhuangzi was a libertarian.[citation needed]
[edit] Evolution
In Chapter 18, Zhuangzi also mentions life forms have an innate ability or power (机) to transform and adapt to their surroundings. While his ideas don't give any solid proof or mechanism of change such as Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin, his idea about the transformation of life from simple to more complex forms is along the same line of thought. Zhuangzi further mentioned that humans are also subject to this process as humans are a part of nature.[2]
-Points that Zhuangzi makes-
everything is everything
there is no good or bad, only thinking makes it so
The world around us may be perceived as an illusion from our senses our experiences and our interpretations, thus illusions are irrelevant to conclude a definite right or wrong way.
Death is just a passage of the illusion of life.
[edit] Translations
The Zhuangzi text is widely regarded as both deeply insightful in thought and as an achievement of the Chinese poetical essay form. It uses the Chinese language in complex, multi-layered, and often playful ways, and is notoriously difficult to translate. Nevertheless, some sinologists have tried. There are complete English translations of all thirty-three chapters by Frederic Balfour, James Legge, Herbert Giles, James Ware, Burton Watson, Martin Palmer, Victor H. Mair, Wang Rongpei, and Nina Correa. There are selected translations of the seven "inner chapters" by Fung Yu-lan, Burton Watson, Gia-Fu Feng, A. C. Graham, Thomas Cleary, and David Hinton. There is also a translation of the seven "inner chapters" and twelve additional chapters by Jerome Seaton and Sam Hamill. There are interpretations of selected Zhuangzi passages by Thomas Merton and Brian Bruya. Graham's is, to date, the most academically thorough, but Watson's is highly praised for its poetic style. Mair's translation also has its highlights, including his decision to translate the poetic parts of the text into English poetry.
思想渊源
世以「老庄」并称，庄子和老子都是道家的代表人物。当然庄子的思想是承继於老子的。相同点主要在「道法自然」的观点中，庄子说「天有大美而不言……是故至人无为，大圣不作，观於天地之谓也。还有就是无为、反对战争等观点。在养生观点上，虽然老庄都谈养生，但庄子更为重视， 《让王》中有「两臂重於天下」。
但老庄之间还是有区别的。老子的学说，除了强调自然的一面以外，还有讲权术的一面。老子说「柔弱胜刚强，《老子》中也处处强调这一点。所以后来法家的韩非也援引《老子》。而庄子抛弃了老子思想中讲权术的一面。章太炎的《论诸子学》中有「其术似与老子相同，其心乃於老子绝异。故《天下篇》历叙诸家，己与关尹、老聃裂分为二。其褒之以『至极』，尊之以『博大真人』者，以其自然之说，为己所取法也。其裂分为二者，不欲以老子之权术自污也。」
再道物关系上，老子和庄子也有不同。《老子·二十五章》中有「道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物。」庄子也认为道生万物，但庄子强调道在物中，认为道无所不在，甚至「在蝼蚁」「在屎溺」。
[编辑] 政治主张
庄子和儒墨有一点很大的不同，儒墨推崇圣人，而庄子说「圣人生而大盗起」。庄子认为圣人的主义学说不过是「窃国大盗」的工具罢了。其中的典型例子就是田成子。「田成子一旦杀其君而盗其国，所盗者岂独其国邪？并与其圣知之法而盗之……窃齐国，并与其圣知之法一守其盗贼之身。」对於圣人，庄子批评「黄帝尚不能全德……尧不慈，舜不孝，[[禹]]偏枯，汤放其主，武王伐纣。」，说孔子是「鲁之巧伪人」。庄子还说「凶德有五，中德为首」，所谓「中德」就是有心为德，有心为德就要虚伪，「日出多伪，士民安取不伪。」，会导致天下大乱。庄子还对圣人学说的积极性怀疑，认为圣人可以使一人变好，也使三人变坏。另外，庄子反对儒家的等级观念，儒家说「君君臣臣父父子子」，庄子认为「道通为一」，认为道在万物，万物平等。
对於治国，庄子反对儒家的以仁义治国和法家的以刑罚治国。庄子认为儒家的仁义礼乐违背人性，会使百姓「失其朴」。对於刑罚治国，「昔者尧治天下，不赏而民劝，不罚而民畏。今子赏罚而民且不仁，德自此衰，刑自此立，后世之乱自此始矣。」。庄子反对儒家和法家的治国方法的核心，是以知治国。庄子认为知是「争之器」，而且知往往会被大盗所利用，所谓「盗亦有道」便是如此。对於以知治国。庄子说「大乱之本，必生於尧舜之间，其末存乎千世之后。千世之后，其必有人与人相食者也。」
所以，庄子与老子一样，主张无为治国，任其自然，认为「绝圣弃知而天下大治」，君主要「无容私」，「汝游心於淡，合气与漠，顺物自然而无容私焉，而天下治矣。」。庄子在《庄子》中描写过他心中的「至德之世」，「不尚贤，不使能，上如标枝，民如野鹿。端正而不知以为义，相爱而不知以为仁，实而不知以为忠，当而不知以为信，蠢动而相使，不以为赐。是故行而无迹，事而无传。」
处世哲学
庄子认为人活在世上，犹如「游於羿之彀中」，到处充满危险。羿指君主，彀指君主的刑罚和统治手段。对於君主的残暴，庄子是一再强调的，「回闻卫君，其年壮，其行独；轻用其国，而不见其过；轻用民死，死者以国量乎泽若蕉，民其无如矣。」。所以庄子不愿去做官，因为他认为伴君如伴虎，只能「顺」。「汝不知夫养虎者乎！不敢以生物与之，为其杀之之怒也；不敢以全物与之，为其决之之怒；时其饥饱，达其怒心。虎之与人异类而媚养己者，顺也；故其杀者，逆也。」还要防止马屁拍到马脚上，「夫爱马者，以筐盛矢，以蜄盛溺。适有蚊虻仆缘，而拊之不时，则缺衔毁首碎胸。」伴君之难，可见一斑。庄子认为人生应是追求自由。
与佛教相类似的，庄子也认为人生有悲的一面。《齐物论》中有「一受其成形，不忘以待尽。与物相刃相靡，其行尽如驰，而莫之能止，不亦悲乎！终身役役而不见其成功，苶然疲役而不知其所归，可不哀邪！人谓之不死，奚益！其形化，其心与之然，可不谓大哀乎？人之生也，固若是芒乎？其我独芒，而人亦有不芒者乎？」 庄子认为如果能做到「齐物」，那麼他便能达到「逍遥」的境界。这是庄子哲学中另一个重要概念，这是个体精神解放的境界，即无矛盾地生存於世界之中。庄子并不否认矛盾，只是强调主观上对矛盾的摆脱。庄子用「无为」来解释这一术语，与老子不同，这里「无为」是指心灵不被外物所拖累的自由自在，无拘无束的状态。这种状态，也被称为「无待」，意为没有相对的东西。这时，人们抛弃了功名利禄，「乘天地之正，而御六气之辩，以游无穷。」这句被普遍认为《逍遥游》一篇主旨，同时也是《庄子》一书的主旨。这是一种心与「道」合一的境界。
庄子认为一般人很虚伪，「人心险於山川，难於知天。天犹有春秋冬夏旦暮之期，人者厚貌深情。」。他批评儒家「以仁义撄人之心」，这样会导致「天下脊脊大乱。而君主的专制统治和对知识的爱好，只会使人心更加败坏，「民之於利甚勤，子有杀父，臣有杀君，正昼为盗，日中穴阫。」
流沙河认为，庄子的为人主要有四点，「一曰立场，站在环中。二曰方法，信奉无为。三曰理想，追慕泽稚。四曰修养，紧守心斋。」[27]
所谓环中，就是不持有任何立场。《内篇·齐物论》中有「得其环中，以应无穷」，《杂篇·则阳》中有「得其环中以随成」。无为在《庄子》中经常出现，庄子认为无论治国还是做人，都要无为。但无为颇难解释，流沙河认为是「伪」或是「人为」的意思。「泽雉十步一啄，百步一饮，不蕲畜乎樊中」[28]，是追求自由。「若一志，无听之以耳而听之以心，无听之以心而听之以气！听止於耳，心止於符。气也者，虚而待物者也。唯道集虚。虚者，心斋也。」[29]，所谓心斋就是要排除心中的种种杂念。
[编辑] 哲学思想
庄子的哲学思想大体可归纳为以道为实体的本体论、「万物齐一」的相对主义认识论，并由此引发出其独有的主观唯心主义倾向和相对主义诡辩倾向。这种本於自然的人性论与伦理观，为后世的中国知识分子提供了另一种生存方式和价值观念的可能性。庄子的哲学提倡破除肉身我与认知我，追求超然物外的审美态度，於事於物不著痕迹。
在庄子哲学中，「道」是宇宙的本体，是一个无限的概念。由「道」而产生了天地万物，「道」本身是万物之源。 「夫道有情有信，无为无形，可传而不可受，可得而不可见，自本自根，未有天地，自古以固存，神鬼神帝，生天生地。」（《庄子·大宗师》）。人如果得「道」，即获得了无限和自由。
庄子「道通为一」（《齐物论》）的思想和近代 Teilhard de Chardin 的哲学思想在把宇宙看成一个有机整体的这一点上是相同的。这种看法比起牛顿把宇宙看成像弹子球撞击那样的机械论思想，显然是更近於二十世纪的科学了。
[编辑] 文学贡献
老子认为「道可道，非常道」[30]，庄子也认为道不可言。但道不可言，又不得不言，所以庄子采用的是「巵言」的方法，「寓言十九，重言十七，巵言日出，和以天倪。」[31]这种方式让庄子的思想像水一般，不会惧怕后人的肢解。同时让他的观点不会被历史湮没。不同的时期拜读，会得更新的意义。庄周梦蝶、混沌开窍、庖丁解牛等都是其出色的寓言。庄子的文字，堪称中国文学史上的一宛奇葩，将先秦散文推向了一个新的高峰。
相对老子而言，庄子的思想倾向於对艺术及自由的追求。从庄周梦蝶、濠梁之辩（子非鱼安知鱼之乐）等事情可见。
[编辑] 对后世的影响
虽然不像儒家一样被官方奉为经典，但庄子却对后世的中国有著重大的影响：
「小国寡民」、「逍遥适己」的思想成为大一统帝国状态下的中国文人保持思想自由和精神独立的重要支柱及理论基础。
「庄骚传统」对中国古代文学，特别是浪漫主义和田园派文学产生了深刻的影响。
「盗亦有道」，后世非官方社会的重要行为准则，源出《庄子·外篇·胠箧第十》
在《庄子》一书中，对儒家如孔子时常嘲讽。孔子时常成了茫然的一位老师。后世，司马光曾写过道家的著作，也专门研究过庄子，但他也公开表示，自己并不喜欢道家学说，还是以儒家为主。
[编辑] 道教中的庄子
南华真人宝诰
志心皈命礼
太清玄嗣，漆园隐吏
经著南华，行合天心
辅玄赞教，无名无己
混合形神，出入太虚
师长桑真人而南华修道，服食北肓火丹於抱犊飞升
乘天地之正，御六气之辩
与万物齐同，共鲲鹏遨游
德润天下，道济万世
逍遥无待，齐同生死
大圣大仁大孝大慈太极闱编郎微妙元通南华真君畅玄济世大天尊