前人論述顧炎武以「經學即理學」觀時，往往從其學術脈絡入手，並就其理學觀爭論釐析。若將「學術」面的探討，再加入一「學術思想」的條件做觀察，是否能得到一更全面的觀照視點？因此，本文將探討層面劃分為「思想」、「學術思想」、「學術範疇」和「實際應用」四個層次，以此為切入點歸結出：前人在相關論題的研究上，因囿於既有話題，過份執著於「經學」及「理學」二字不放，且於學術思想及學術範疇等層次上亦未能釐析，故而後人各自成說，莫衷一是。顧炎武既對自身學脈並不刻意辨析，在宋明理學學術上的繼承或批駁問題上，未見特有著力。是故，在面對顧炎武學術時，應首重在明白其「理學」，本質上與宋明理學並不相同，顧炎武因重經世致用，故其理學觀更重在道德實踐面的工夫義上。然後明「經學即理（禮）學」乃是寓經學於禮、由禮以顯經學：旨在將形上之理與形下之禮做一會通，以使其經世思想，透過對經書的研究，能夠就具體層面上做一體現與安排。

Elder academics discussed the meaning of Gu Yan wu’s scholarship “the study of Jingxue is the study of Lixue” by advance of history of Chinese Intellectual, and had an altercation about Gu’s study of Lixue. But the most important crux of the question is elder academics often discussed Gu’s scholarship that he not really cared about advance of history of Lixue in Chinese Intellectual. So, I try to find and treat this question in another way. I think we will get a different answer if we can discern the different gradations in what we talk about the idea of Jingxue and Lixue. And we will understand the meaning of the study of “Li” is not equal to the meaning of “Lixue” for Gu Yan Wu.