郭象的人生論一方面反映了西晉虛偽的名敎之治，權貴們追逐名利的腐化墮落。另方面則反映了士人苟安避世的貴無說及陷溺於政場中，矜尚名敎機制的崇有論者。二者的人生論在時代的困境中各有利弊得失。郭象的人生論本著時代共同的感受，以玄理辯證地出入於崇有論及貴無說之間，對二方的弊端予以批判否定，對二方的合理處予以辯證地統合。他本著兼綜儒道的玄理主脈，以莊子內聖外王的思想架構，將道家的神人、至人安立於無執之「內聖」中，再將儒家維繫道德名教的治世理想落在聖王的「外王」中，成就了「名教即自然」的儒道調合之玄學命題。然而其自生獨化於玄冥之境的存有論，陷入本體的不可知論及割裂本體與現象的聯繫。其人生論中的適性逍遙也平面化為常人的有待逍遙及聖人的無待逍遙，聖凡之別訴諸稟氣性份，工夫與境界也喪失立體式的層級結構。這是由於他有明於個別化的自性，而無見於人與人之間深藏著共同的根性與結構。
Guo Xiang's theory of humanity on the one hand was a reflection on the emptiness of the Western Jin, ”Ming Jiao” (Value Morals and Institutions) and the tendency of those in power to fall into corrupt practices. On the other hand it was a reflection on those reclusive scholars of the day with their notion of ”gui wu shuo” (Theory on the Priority of Non-Being) and on those scholars that would submerge themselves in the political arena. The Mm Jiao scholars, with their chong you lun” (Theory on the Priority of Being) and the other scholars with their ”ren sheng lun” (Theory on the Philosophy of Life) both had their attributes and detriments in the political theater of the day. Guo Xiang's (ren sheng lun) was influenced by both, these schools. He dialectically employed ”xuan ii' (the Principles of the Mystery) in establishing his ”ren sheng lun” between the ”gui wu shuo” and the ”chong you lun”, discrediting the errorrs in both and synthesizing the good points of what was best in the two schools. Guo Xiang also succeeded in amalgamating the Confucian and Daoist notions on the principles of the Mystery. He also gave structure to Zhuang-zi's notion of ”nei sheng wai wang” (Sageliness Within and Kinglilness Without). With these two notions he established a flexible interpretation of the Daoist nation of ”sagelines within”, employed the Confucianist notion for the ordering of the world in ideal of kingliness, finally coming up with ”Ming jiao ji zi ran” (The Spontaneity of Value Morals, and Institution) in bringing together the Daoist and Confucian notions of ”xuan li'. He then employed the Daoist notions of ”slen ren” (Spiritual Man” and ”zhi ren” (Perfect Man) in reinterpreting the idea of this inner sageliness. However, his ontology, and his theory of self-generative being existing in a nebulous world, severing the link between being and phenomena, easily fell prey to agnosticism. The freedom achieved by docility to nature was levelled down to freedom with some attachment of ordinary people and without any attachment of the sage. The difference of the two was a matter of ”chi” (temperament). Ascetism and state of mind lost their transcendental structure. This is due to' his putting emphasis on the individuation of nature, and neglecting the deep structure of things emerging from a common root.
