本文主要透過評論葛榮晉二○○三年出版的《中國實學文化導論》一書，探討中國大陸近二十年來儒學研究的「實學」熱現象。該書為葛氏繼《明清實學思潮史》 、 《中國實學思想史》之後，集結總論「實學」研究總成績之作。本文所採取的立場如下：1.其書對儒學分類方式蘊藏內建邏輯矛盾、未能體系一貫的問題。2.其所企圖以「實學」觀做為提挈整體儒學思想的關鍵──例如將理學亦劃歸為「實學」發展歷程、朱熹亦為「實學」思想代表人物，實際上既混淆了學統也泯失了各體學術間的界限。3.其欲以「明清實學」一稱做為繼「宋明理學」之後哲學形態的專名；在其又將宋、明、清學皆定位為「實學」的同質性下，不能彰顯清代思想特色。故筆者認為雖然明清時期確有重視感性的經驗論色彩，卻不宜以極易落入相對虛、實批判的「實學」一名，做為概括明清階段的學術專稱，更不宜以之做為繼「理學」後的哲學形態專名。

After Song-Ming period, Ching's academic thoughts had been nega-tively slighted by the academic community until the rise of "Ming-Ching Pragmatism" ( 明清實學 ). Among the Confucian schools, other than the "Song-Ming Rationalism" ( 宋明實學 ), the "Ming-Ching prag-matism" is thought to be the most influential one that recognizes the positive value of Ming - Ching's academic thoughts. It recognizes Ching's academic current, which encourages studying for practical purposes. In addition, it is indicated that, "Ming-Ching Pragmatism" not only criticizes "Song-Ming Rationalism" from the philosophical aspect, but it also controverts the stereotyped expression that Ching schools have no critical views. Regarding the use of the term "pragma-tism" ( 實學 ), I think it is a conceptual adjective, and it should be used as a commonplace phrase ( 通明 ) rather than a special term ( 專名 ).When exclusively used to refer to one particular thing, pragma-tism will be thought as an anti thesis to the tradition, denoting the replacement of old things. In this way, controversial arguments would thus arise. And since the generality level of pragmatism is too high, almost every academic school could always find its own pragmatic aspect. As an academic category that is all-inclusive, "Pragmatism" would nevertheless blur the distinctions among all individual academic schools. In this way, no rigid and systematic logic scope or theoretic-cal framework could be established. Therefore, I think it is inappro-priate for Ge Ronjin ( 葛榮晉 ) to adopt the term, pragmatism, to refer to "Ming-Ching Pragmatism" or "Chinese Pragmatism".