本文試圖自後設的層次，對一般所謂的「中國哲學」提出反省思考「『中國哲學』這個概念沒有疑義？中國哲學作為研究的對象真的成立嗎？真的有中國哲學這一回事嗎？」面對此等問題，首先，本文為自我定位，比照現行後設倫理學與知識論的討論，指出學科對自身展開後設思考，是哲學的要求，也是學科本身成熟的象徵。其次，本文分析「中國哲學」與「中國哲學方法論」兩詞，說明其歧義：前者可指「哲學在中國」與「中國式的哲學」；後者可指「中國哲學的園究方法論」與「中國哲學的修養論」或「工夫論」。再其次，以馮友蘭的著作作為個案研究的對象，論述馮氏的「中國哲學」概念，從普遍哲學的「哲學在中國」，滑轉擺盪至傳統義理之學的「中國式的哲學」。更進一步，面對「中國哲學」概念的這個問題，本文列舉了四種回應，並各自論證其困難與限制。又針對「研究方法」的問題，本文描述四種「研究綱領」。最後，本文指出：現階段中國哲學的研究，有著沉重的「中國哲學史」擔負，甚至可以說是，中國哲學研究即中國哲學史全面或局部的研究；然而，歷史知識並非理性知識或哲學知識。

This paper attempts to offer a perspective on so-called Chinese philosophy from a meta-level reflective thinking. According to my and some others’ observation of the present condition, Chinese philosophy scholars have been confronted with the hardest problem: what is Chinese philosophy, or, more fundamentally, is there the thing so called “Chinese philosophy” on earth? The paper first argues that the two terms, “Chinese philosophy” and “the methodology of Chinese philosophy”, is ambiguous. Secondly, I take Fung Yu-lan’s discourse on this issue into case study, and discuss some responses to the problem stated above. Thirdly, with respect to the current study of Chinese philosophy, four research programs are enumerated and depicted in this paper, the validity of each of which is yet to be examined respectively. At last I point out that the current study of Chinese philosophy is overweighed with studies of history of Chinese philosophy. There is a need to distinguish rational or philosophical knowledge form historical knowledge as Kant argued for.