17 世紀時，中國和日本都是以宋明理學為官方意識形態，但為什麼當西方現代衝擊來臨之際，兩國政治思想的近現代轉型會呈現出極大的差別？本文以氣論為中心，探討中、日朱子學在其衝擊下變構方式的同和異，分析由此形成的中、日大不相同的近現代政治思想結構，以及它們如何影響兩國接受西方現代思想的方式和進程。 在日本，朱子學是幕府的意識形態。氣論對朱子學的衝擊，造成了儒學內部道德倫理與政治理性的緊張和分離。由於日本歷史上形成了一種天皇、幕府二元結構的封建等級政治制度，到19 世紀中葉，儒學內部的這種裂痕有利於促成日本的二元論政治文化的形成，為政治中心由幕府轉移到天皇以及明治維新初期全面迅速地引進西方政治制度，提供了整體性的合法性論證。中國因受到天人合一和道德價值一元論等文化深層結構的制約，氣論對宋明理學的批判和衝擊，無論是劉宗周、黃宗羲、王船山的氣論，還是較晚戴震的氣論，都只不過是引起儒家道德哲學的某種變構，它們沒有能夠動搖儒學的道德一元論整體結構。直到19 世紀末以至20 世紀初，儒學在西方衝擊下解體時，這四種變構才呈現其意義。它們或成為接引西方現代政治觀念的本土資源，或其思維模式在中國當代思想中表現出來。 現代化在制度層面是全球性和普世性的，但在不同文明中，作為現代制度正當性根據的政治思想及其形成過程，則是不盡相同的。中日兩國的氣論對儒學的改造呈現出的巨大差異就是一例。從這個意義上來說，氣論導致儒學的解構和不同類型的變構是東亞現代政治文化的源頭。

Song-Ming Lixue (a Confucian School of the Song and Ming Dynasties, also known as Neo-Confucianism) was the official ideology of in both China and Japan during the Seventeenth Century. However why was there such a great difference between Chinese and Japanese political thoughts during the modern transform? This essay compares the different ways of transconstruction of Neo-Confucianism in both countries, aiming to show that before the Western cultural influence, they had developed different political cultures and it is the main reason that the acceptances and reconstructions of modern western political thoughts landed in totally different tracks. To replace the Li-Qi-dualism (Principle-Material Force Dualism) of Neo-Confucianism with Qi-monism (Material Force-monism), one of the unavoidable consequences was the idea world, which decided by the rank-ordered morality, would become a realist world. There was not an intergrated system, which the private and public spheres were involved in Japan, neither existed the culture of “realist world constructs the idea world as China had. In Japan, Qilun’s impact towards Neo-Confucianism caused the spilt of politics and morality, making the Confucian ethics fall into the private sphere and the emperor became the symbol of the nation, which had nothing to do with instrumentalism. Thus the Meiji Restoration Era placed a good ground for Japanese to develop its odernity in full speed. In China, bounded by her deep-rooted cultural structure, Qilun’s impact reconstructed the political ideology. This essay analyzed the four typical Qilun attacks and how Confucianism dealt with each of them. The four Qilun were raised by Huang Zongxi, Wang Chuanshan, Dai Zhen and Liu Zongzhou. This essay also proved that these four Qilun served as the base for accepting foreign concepts to develop modern political thoughts. For examples, Huang’s Qilun as the fol esources of constitutional monarchy; Wang’s Qilun was similar to the dialectical materialism which was popular after the May Fourth Movement; Dai’s Qilan was the start of individualism and later developed to the Chinese version of liberalism; Liu’s self-restrain had the same structure as Mao Zedong’s “criticizing the capitalists” self-restrain movement. The most important thing is after Mao’s ideas were overthrown, Qilun still laid on Chinese’s sub-consciousness and it serves as the cultural base of the Qigong-mania nowadays. This essay aims to prove that even modernity is a concept from the west, which is supposed to be global and universal, but different cultures process rationalism and ultimate concern in their own ways and therefore multiplemodernity exists and Qilun is the source of Confucian civilized modernity in East-Asia.