战国中后期,理的概念流行起来,道和理的关系成为代表世界总体与事物本体之关系的重要问题。法家各派都在思考。韩非认为,道指万物之所同,是万物之所以然的那个东西;理指万物之所异,是某物区别于他物的特征。两者具有普遍与特殊对立统一的辩证关系。韩非观点的意义要从历史的比较中给予说明。老子的道指称世界本原和总体,却未能清除价值因素,也未能发明理的概念给予具体化,所以在担纲事物法则时力不从心。《庄子》明确提出了道是无所不在的,不但指称高贵者,还可代表卑贱和肮脏之物,至此,其本体属性才得以实现。《庄子》虽然引入了理的概念,却未能说明道和理具有普遍与特殊相同一的关系。韩非系统地论说了这个关系,对道家思想有重大突破,是道论本体化发展中法家的一个重要贡献。不过,与老师荀子和前辈名家相比,韩非满足于一物一理的对象化认知,忽视主体经验和范畴知识,未能给道的多重属性和复杂关系以进一步的说明,这是他的理论局限。 During the middle and late Warring States period, the concept of reason became popular, and the relationship between Taoism and reason became an important issue that represented the relationship between the whole world and the noumenon of things. Legalists are thinking. Han Fei does not think that the same thing of the Taoism is the same thing as the reason of all things. The difference of the mind means everything, which is the characteristic of something different from other things. Both have a dialectical relationship of universality and special unity of opposites. The significance of Han Fei’s point of view should be given from the historical comparison. Lao Tzu’s account of the primitive and general aspects of the world, but failed to clear the value of the factors, but also failed to concretize the concept of concretization, so when the rules of things are not effective. “Zhuangzi” made it clear that Tao is omnipresent, not only alleges noble, but also represents humble and dirty things, so far, its ontology attributes can be realized. Although Zhuangzi introduced the concept of reason, it failed to show that Taoism has universal and special relations with one another. Han Fei systematically discussed this relationship and made major breakthroughs in Taoist thinking, which is an important contribution of the French lawmakers in the development of Taoism. However, comparing with teacher Xun Zi and predecessors, Han Fei is not satisfied with the object-oriented cognition of one thing and one thing, ignoring the subjective experience and category knowledge, and failing to give further explanation to the multiple attributes and complex relations of Tao. This is his The theoretical limitations.