在很多對於整理論的討論中，經常會有範圍歧義與主體歧義的問題。不同的整體範圍會產生不同的整體論主張：例如溫和整體論與極端整體論的不同。而在不同的主題之下，我們更可區分出意義整體論、科學證成的整體論、信念內容的整體論、與詮釋或理解的整體論。本文的主要目的，就是要揭露出這些內在於整體論中最根本的問題：亦即範圍歧義與主題歧義。文中，整體論圖式的設立，就是要用來證明整體論並不是一個單純的理論，而整體的範圍究竟多大，也必須要有嚴格的限定。 利用所設立出來的整體論圖式，我進一步指出蒯因的整體論主張也並非毫無歧義與瑕疵的。在第三節中，我們可以發現，在蒯因的「經驗論的兩個獨斷」一文中，其實包含了主題上的歧義；在第四節中，更可從蒯因的其他文獻找到範圍上的歧義。而第五節所討論的兩難，則仍是蒯因的整體論中範圍的問題。雖然我企圖為蒯因的主題歧義尋求連接的可能，並為其範圍歧義尋求合理解釋之可能，但面臨整體論與觀察語句之間的兩難，似乎仍有不同的解決方式，而蒯因自己的解決方法似乎並不是那麼令人滿意。無論如何，我必須指出，本文的意圖，並不在於為整體論的一般問題或蒯因哲學中的問題提出我的解決辦法，我只是要指出整體論並不是一個單純的理論，而其最根本的問題就再於主題歧義與範圍歧義，即使像蒯因這麼著名的哲學家，其整體論的討論中，也存在著同樣根本的問題。

Many discussions of holism fail to see the scope ambiguity and the subject ambiguity involved in the doctrine. With the different scopes or sizes, there are both moderate and extreme versions of holism. With respect to the different subjects, we can distinguish holism about meaning from holism about confirmation or disconfirmation, about belief-fixation or belief-content, or about interpretation or understanding. The principal aim of this article is to expose these fundamental problems of scope-ambiguity and subject-ambiguity in holism. A schema of holism is set up to show that holism is not a simple doctrine, and that an intended subject explicitly set forth is required for pursuing the appropriate artument for or against holism following by restricting the field to a scope suitable for the discussion at issue. Based on the schema of holism constructed in section 1, I go on to show that Quine is not totally unambiguous in his various statements of holism or proposals for the thesis. In section 3, the subject-ambiguity is found in his “Two Dogmas”; and in section 4, the scope-ambiguity is also come upon after a search through his different works. The dilemma discussed in section 5 is mainly due to the scope problem of Quine's holism. Although the attempts are made to bridge the different claims or subjects of holism made by Quine, and to explain why the different visions or scopes of holism do not necessarily conflict according to what Quine might have in mind, the solution of the dilemma as I attributed to Quine might not sound very satisfying. I conclude by suggesting that the options for solving Quine's dilemma are wide open. My intention, however, is not to solve the problems of holism in general or in Quine's holism. I only want to point out that the fundamental problems of holism lie in the scope and the subject ambiguities, and these are so can even be found more clearly in the works of Quine, one of the most prominent icons in contemporary philosophy.