In De Anima III 9, Aristotle raises a series of criticisms against the Platonic division of the soul. He firstly indicates that the parts of the soul seem to be infinite, and not confined to the calculative, spirited, and the appetitive part, as Plato describes. Secondly, Plato’s tripartition of the soul almost neglects the nutritive part as an independent capacity of the soul. Moreover, although the Platonists simplifies Plato’s tripartition and transformed it into a bipartition, it is not easy to assign the perceptive part either to therational or the irrational part. Finally, Aristotle thinks that it is totally unreasonable for the Platonic soul-division to split the desiderative part up, which should be one and single capacity of the soul; for then there would be wish in the calculative, appetite and spirit in the irrational part, such that in each part of the soul there would be desire.In this article I shall explain these criticisms respectively. However, I will not treat them as though they were isolated, but will show that they belong to Aristotle’s overall criticism against Platonism. J. Annas and G. Fine have suggested that in criticizing Plato’s theory of forms, Aristotle usually finds fault with this theory in an uncharitable and even arrow way. Sometimes he takes an inexact and vague Platonic claim, and provides one literal and natural reading of it on which he then proceeds to attack. Sometimes he reads a Platonic claim not in a way Plato would accept, but in a way which derives from the assumptions of his own metaphysics or from his own understandings about Platonism. Sometimes he criticizes a Platonic argument even in isolation from the original context in Plato’s dialogues. In so doing, however, Aristotle does not intend to misinterpret Plato; his aim is not to record Plato’s arguments straightforwardly, but rather to reconstruct them in a way that will provide philosophical illumination, so that we can learnsomething important about Platonism and the plausibility of Aristotle’s alternative. This article will show that in principle, Aristotle’s criticisms of the Platonic soul-division are compatible with his general mode of criticism against Platonism.

面對一般對柏拉圖「理性主義」的刻板印象，這篇論文試圖論述：對柏 拉圖而言，「慾望」本身具有價值。為進一步探討柏拉圖哲學中慾望和理性 的關係，文中將以《饗宴》裡厄律克希馬可斯的醫學談話，作為比較的對象。 厄律克希馬可斯的「技藝」（τέχνη），即，希波克拉底派的醫學，符合柏拉 圖早期對知識的要求，也就是：知識必須要能提出合理的說明；此外，當時 的醫學是在藉由好慾望與壞慾望之間的平衡，而使人內在各成分達致健康與 和諧。然而，這裡提出的解釋是：柏拉圖的哲學超出了理性科學或技藝的知 識範本；在對慾望的處理上，他不依循醫學對慾望好壞的區分，他的和諧概 念也保留了理性與非理性慾望並存的差異。柏拉圖哲學需要慾望的力量，慾望雖然可能變成非理性，卻也是靈魂追求哲學不可缺少的力量。

Chuanshan presents lots of philosophical questions and theories via his interpretation on Zhuangzi, and the one about the concept of “Helping Heaven” especially deserves our attention. There are at least two reasons for this. First, in Chuanshan’s mind, the Inner Chapters is the representative of Zhuangzi’s thought, and the core in it is the concept, “Helping Heaven”. Second, Chuanshan regards “Helping Heaven” not only as the core theory in Zhuangzi but also as the standard to evaluate different theories in ancient Chinese philosophy.The discussion of this paper is divided into three parts. First, in Chuanshan’s interptretation, Zhuangzi’s “Helping Heaven” tells us why living is more valuable than death. From this viewpoint, we can ask further why not all personalities or behaviors have the same value. In the second part, we according to Chuanshan’s interpretation, figure out the answer to the question above from the metaphysical meaning of Zhuangzi’s “Helping Heaven”. In the end, the paper discusses the ethical meaning of “Helping Heaven” in Chuanshan’s interpretation.

Zhu Xi’s criticisms of Cheng-Shi-Yi-Zhuan seem to be diverse and inconsistent. Further analyses, however, show the contrary. To put it very briefly, Zhu Xi’s complaints were mainly due to Cheng Yi’s failure to bring about a coherent theory that can integrate xiang-shu, yi-li, and shi-fa, as well as his lack of awareness of the significance of such an integration. The reason why Cheng Yi failed in both regards was in turn due to his ignorance of the theoretical roles Shao Yong’s xian-tien-yi-xue can play. By demonstratingwhat those theoretical roles are and why they are so important to Zhu Xi, this paper explicates Zhu Xi’s own understanding of the Book of Changes.