Abstract

Mr. Mou in the interpretation of "I" based on the "form of metaphysical realm," but does not concern Mou Road is subjective or objective, but how to say "can not say that 'way. Road is not, is true, making it difficult to say from its objectivity, he another way, from a subjective state of mind to say. He questioned the interpretation of the Road as an entity, the concept of physical or general commentary. In the interpretation of the method, closely linked to "I" text, drawing on Chuang Tzu, Wang Bi, another Western philosophical background as a reference, is very convincing. But in order to interpret the consistency of his 'I' in individual text made ​​a "misinterpretation", showing that its interpretation of the limitations of the approach roads. Mou Heidegger "non-object-oriented" concept of the reference to this may compensate for the limitations of their interpretations into the road, but he did not realize, because he failed to fully understand Heidegger's phenomenological method. Mou Zong-san interprets Taoism as the "Metaphysics in the line of vision" based on his understanding of Laozi. What he mainly concerns is not whether Tao is subjective or objective, but how to interpret the "unspeakable" Tao. Tao is nothing and empty, so it's difficult to interpret it as any objective reality. Mou Zong-san finds a new way to interpret Tao, which is to disclose the content of Tao from the function of the subjective state of mind. He strongly queried the traditional interpretation which considered Tao as Substance, entity or Idea. His understanding is convincing on the basis of Laozi and his insights into Zhuagnzi and Wang Bi's commentaries of Laozi, but sometimes he had to misinterpret the text in order to make his interpretation consistent, which reveals the limitation of his interpretation. Mou Zong-san absorbs Heidegger's non-objectified way of thinking which could have made up for the limitation, but he did not realize it for he could not fully understand the phenomenological approach of Heidegger