本文主旨在於論証：朱子詮釋《論語》「克己復禮」章的整體涵義，以及後儒批判朱子學時所提出的解經原則，並分析他們按照各自提出的解經方法，必然誤解朱子對此章的解釋，故皆無法進入朱子學的詮釋之環，而且在他們企圖瓦解朱子學詮釋典範所提出的解經原則後，仍然無法解決經典解釋的歧異性。因此，本文第二節首先闡釋朱子「克己」、「復禮」、「為仁」的三個關鍵思想內涵，認為除了從《論語集注》了解此章意涵外，尚須從朱子相關解釋此章之著作來掌握朱子對此章的整體思想，方不致誤解朱子的關鍵思想。本文第三節舉出中日三位儒者作為批判朱子思想的代表人物，如清儒戴震，以及日本德川時代古學派儒者荻生徂徠、懷德堂的考證學者中井履軒等三位儒者對朱子的批判與誤解。三位後儒均認為朱子解經時，違背了使用「語言」的原則，一是以戴震為代表，認為朱子解經違背「援佛老之言而為儒家之言的忌諱」，以致讓儒與釋老不可分別。其二是認為朱子解經違背「歷史語言的脈絡性」之解經原則，此又可分違背「孔子時代的語言脈絡」與違背「六經時代的語言脈絡」。履軒代表前者，後者以徂徠為代表。本文結論，認為批判者必須能進入解經者的詮釋之環，而不只是提出解經原則來侷限解經者的自由，反而易流於「以其所知而害其所不知也」之病。

The twofold purpose of this article is (1) to illustrate how Zhu Zi interpreted the general meaning of “master oneself and return to propriety” of the Analects, and (2) to explain the hermeneutical principles advanced by later Confucianists to criticize Zhu. In the analysis of the article, they are shown to have misunderstood Zhu’s interpretation of the issue because of their faulty hermeneutical approaches. Furthermore, having made attempts to discredit the hermeneutical principles brought forth by Zhu’s interpretative pattern, they still failed to solve the complex controversy over the classic interpretation. Hence, the second section of the article starts with the definition of the very meaning of three critical parts of Zhu’s thought, “master oneself”, “return to propriety”, and “humanity”. To avoid misunderstanding Zhu’s critical thought, I think we must also grasp Zhu’s general thought as expounded in other works related to the interpretation of the issue, when forming our understanding of it from the Collected Commentaries on the Analects (Lun-yü ji-zhu). In the third section of the article, three Confucianists, Dai Zhen (1723-1777) of Qing Dynasty, Tokugawa Japan’s Ogyü Sorai (1666-1728) of the Ancient-Learning School, and textual scholar, Naikai Liken (1732-1817) of Kaidokudo Academy, all three typical critics of Zhu Zi, are treated as representative of mistaken criticism of Zhu. They all held that Zhu violated the principle of the ‘linguistic’ use in interpreting the Confucian Classics. The first view is best represented by the interpretation of Dai Zhen. He argued that Zhu misconstrued the Six Classics by applying both Buddhist and Taoist linguistic usages to Confucianism, which led to an obscure mixture of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. The second view was that Zhu’s interpretation of the Classics contradicted the context of historical language. It was subdivided into the violation of the language context of the Confucius’ age and that of the language context of the age of the Six Classics. Liken favored the former; Sorai, the latter. Lastly, the article concludes that in addition to the confinement of Zhu's freedom of interpretation within these hermeneutical principles, the critics must have been able to enter the nucleus of Zhu’s interpretation, otherwise, their faculty of understanding of what was beyond their knowledge would be obstructed by the limitation of their narrow-minded knowledge.