筆者從韓元震的經學體系起源於對朱子學的定論著手，論證其對栗谷學派的正統性確立的意義。 朝鮮時代的儒學家大體可分爲兩個學派：其一爲退溪學派，而另一則爲栗谷學派。這兩個學派的學說雖皆源於朱子學，然而他們的論點卻不盡相同，尤其是在心的定義上，也就是說心是「合理氣」或者「心即氣」。兩個學派間不僅彼此的觀點不盡相同，栗谷學派體系內的儒學者之間也各持己見。栗谷學派中的儒學家們又可大別爲，以李柬爲首的「洛學」和以韓元震爲首的「湖學」各持己論分恃兩派。其中「洛學」雖爲栗谷學派中的一部分，然而從另一個角度來看，他們的觀點是偏向退溪學派的。於此，韓元震著述《朱子言論同異攷》就是想要由此證明，比起退溪學派，栗谷學派的立論著實更貼近朱子之本意，所以「湖學」比「洛學」理當更貼近朱子學說的本意。 本文的論證的主題是「心即氣」、「未發心體純善與否」與「聖凡心同異」的概念。本文意欲藉由韓元震的經學體制不在訓詁學與考證學而在其義理學的背景來探討栗谷學派內的正統性存在於以韓元震爲首的「湖學」之中。

This thesis proposes to demonstrate that Han Weon-Jin's (韓元震) view on the Study of Confucian Classics strives to maintain the orthodoxy of the school of Yul-Gok (栗谷學派) by clarifying the established theory of Chu-tzu (朱子). There are two kinds of Confucius in JoSeon (朝鮮) dynasty. One is the school of Toe-Ge (退溪學派), and the other is the school of Yul-Gok (栗谷學派). All of their theories are based on the school of Chu-tzu (朱子學), but the point of view is different from each other. Especially, the defining of Xin (心) is controversial to both of them (栗谷學派, 退溪學派) whether it includes Li (理) and Qi (氣) or it includes only Qi (氣). The school of Yul-Gok (栗谷學派) is classified as Nak school (洛學) starting with Yi Gan (李柬), and Ho school (湖學) starting with Han Weon-Jin (韓元震). Although the Nak school (洛學) belongs to the school of Yul-Gok (栗谷學派), the point of view on the Xin (心) is similar to that of Toe-Ge (退溪學派). Accordingly, Han Weon-Jin (韓元震) demonstrates that Chu-tzu's (朱子) theory more coincides with the theory of Yul-Gok (栗谷) than that of Toe-Ge (退溪) by publishing 『朱子言論同異攷』. The main ideas during this argument are 'Mind is Qi (心是氣)', 'While there are no stirrings emotions, Mind is pure good' (未發心體純善), and 'The sameness/difference between sage and common mind (聖凡心同異)'. Consequently, Han Weon-Jin (韓元震)'s view on the Study of Confucian Classics is based on Moral Principle Study (義理學), not on Exegetics (訓詁學) or Documental Archaeology (考證學). It is also aimed to take an orthodoxy in the school of Yul-Gok (栗谷學派).