人们在解释庄子“至人无己，神人无功，圣人无名”时，一般都或从文字学，或从庄子哲学这一“正”的角度入手，而忽略了庄子“三无说”的历史背景，即它是一种思想论战的产物，分别针对着当时的三家显学，即讲贵己的杨朱，讲功利的墨子和讲正名的孔子而发，是一种思想批判的产物，因此从这里也可看出他们之间的深刻差异。 When people interpret Chuang Tzu’s theory of “no man for himself, no man for God, no name for the saint,” people generally start with the philology or the “positive” point of view of Zhuangzi’s philosophy and neglect the “three novels” of Zhuangzi The historical background, that is, it is a product of ideological polemics. It is a product of ideological criticism directed at the three prominent schools of study at that time, namely, Yang Zhu, a self-serving writer, and Mohist Confucius, So from here you can see the profound differences between them.