由於北宋的張載和明中葉的王廷相的哲學都顯示出氣一元論的取向，道致不少學者把王廷相視為張載在明代的繼承人。本文將試圖證明，二者的氣論實際上有本質上的不同。簡而言之，張載哲學中的氣，同時是形而上的至善道體和形而下的材質物體。基於這個認識，他能在承認萬物具體差別的同時，不放棄萬物能在更高的層次上合而為一的信念。這是一種「求同」的哲學。王廷相的氣論卻否定至善道體的存在，只重視由實然之氣所形成的天地萬物「不齊」的必然性。這是一種「存異」的哲學。衡之以晚明思想界的發展，王廷相的哲學當比王陽明的哲學更能反映明中葉以後的思想文化從「求同」到「存異」過渡。

Both Zhang Zai張載of the Northern Song and Wang Tingxiang王廷相of the mid-ming have displayed the tendency to construct a monist philosophy based on the concept of qi氣. This has led many scholars to consider Wang as the Ming successor of Zhang. The purpose of this paper is to point out that the philosophies of these two philosophers are actually fundamentally quite different The qi in Zhang Zai’s thought is both an ontological source of value and a tangible matter that produces all physical objects. In articulating this concept of qi, Zhang Zai is able to acknowledge the diversity of all things in the world, and yet at the same time, put forth the belief that all things can achieve unity at a higher level. The basic orientation of Zhang’s philosophy is therefore to search for unity. On the other hand, Wang Tingxiang’s qi philosophy refuses to acknowledge that there is an ontological source of value. He instead insists that all concrete objects produced by qi are different and he is constantly looking for ways to accommodate this diversity. The author argues that compared with the philosophy of Wang Yangming, that of Wang Tingxiang could better reflect the shift from “searching for unity” to “accommodating diversity” in the intellectual world from the mid-Ming onwards.