When we usually describe the history of ancient Chinese philosophy, we place Confucianism and Daoism as opposing philosophies. Confucianism and Daoism are philosophical schools that grew while criticizing each other as opponents. However, Mencius, who laid the foundation for Confucianism after Confucius, prioritized confrontation with ‘Yang-Mo’(楊墨), not Daoism. This is the so-called criticism of Yang-Mo. However, The Zhuangzi also criticized ‘Yang-Mo’ as much as Mencius. Surprisingly, in ancient Chinese literature, the expression ‘Yang-Mo’ appears only in Mencius and Zhuangzi.So is it appropriate to understand Mencius and Zhuangzi as Confucianism and Daoism, schools of thought with opposing positions? A embarrassing problem is that in the late 20th century studies on the authorship of the Zhuangzi, some of the outer and miscellaneous chapters were classified as writings of the Yangism (or Yangzhu school; 楊家, 楊朱派). How should we understand that some of the chapters of Zhuangzi, which fiercely criticize Yangzhu and Mozi through the expression ‘Yang Mo’, came from the Yangzhu school?Feng Youlan's history of philosophy, which had a great influence on the establishment of the history of Chinese philosophy in the 20th century, needs to be understood in the context of the ideological atmosphere in which he wrote the history of philosophy. Feng Youlan's definition of Daoism can be seen as having been born in the ideological atmosphere in which Laozi and Zhuangzi were criticized as philosophies of egoism since the 1920s. Feng Youlan sets the philosophy of extreme egoism, which was the core of the criticism of Daoism at the time, as the core of Daoism, and by describing Laozi and Zhuangzi as philosophies that overcome this egoism, it seems that Daoism was saved.However, from the perspective of scholars who have found the Yangzhu school or Yangism in Zhuangzi, Zhuangzi becomes a text in which the two sides, on the one hand, succeed Yangzhu, and on the other hand, fiercely attack Yangzhu, coexist. In order to dissolve this problem, it is necessary to break away from the concept of ‘school’(家) such as Confucianism or Daoism in the Han Dynasty. Rather, it shows that it is necessary to approach the text of the Warring States period more openly from the perspective of ‘zi-xue’(子學) as a smaller and more diverse community of masters-and-students.In this paper, I would like to discuss three main arguments. First, by examining Feng Youlan's ‘Taoism’ and its historical background, I will discuss the discrepancy between the concepts of 20th century Daoism and Han Dynasty Daoism. Second, by examining Yangzhu in the Zhuangzi and the ‘Yangzhu-s’ appearing in various other texts, I will argue that ‘Yang-Mo’ and Yangzhu have separate contexts. Third, by examining the critiques of ‘Yang-Mo’ in Zhuangzi and Mencius, I will argue that it is necessary to understand ‘philosophers’(諸子) and ‘hundred schools’(百家) differently when discussing ancient Chinese philosophy.