孫盛以〈老聃非大賢論〉、〈老子疑問反訊〉二文來質疑《老子》學說的矛盾，並批判貴無以來的偏執玄風，同時也爲了調合貴無、崇有「定於一玄」之偏，故而提出「圓化之道」，學者據此或認爲孫盛爲反玄論者，或歸爲重玄論者。然而本文以爲孫盛的立論基礎是玄通有無，兼重儒道，若用這樣的標準來反老及貴無之論並不十分相應，所以逕稱反老爲反玄，其立論似乎未盡圓熟。然若僅因爲他主張「尚無既失之矣；崇有亦未得，二者皆未達圓化之道。」就又將他歸諸爲重玄論者，似乎又嫌冒險了些。本文認爲孫盛的「圓化之道」是郭象莊學式的「圓化之道」，既非反玄論者也非重玄論者，而是在無與有的對立當中重新結合，建立一玄學體系，使自然與名教的問題達到最玄通圓熟的境界。它是東晉玄學發展過程中的一個階段，本文則定位爲「後玄學」階段。 Sun-Shen questions Lao Zi's ideology in 'On Lao Zi being not a great sage' and 'Questions on Lao Zi,' and he criticizes the biased metaphysics' climate after the theory of 'Preferring nothing to something' is widespread. Simultaneously, he proposes the ideology of 'harmony' in order to modify those biased theories. Based on the aforementioned, scholars regard Sun-Shen as a critic who is against metaphysics, or who supports 'abstruse metaphysics. 'This essay considers Sun-Shen's ideology of harmony is in succession to Guo-Xiang's ideology. Sun-Shen is neither an advocate of 'anti-metaphysics' nor of 'abstruse metaphysics; ' he establishes a system of metaphysics, remerging the contradictory concepts of nothing (nonbeing) and something (being), and brings the problem of nature and ethical code to the most mellow state. This is a phase in the development of metaphysics in East-Jin, and this essay positions it as 'the phase of post-metaphysics.'
