當前浙學研究的難題，在於學者對「浙學」所指內涵未能形成共識，因此本文首先釐清宋代至清代學人的「浙學」概念。明代學者的「浙學」概念，雖然承續宋代理學問題，但學派譜系關係已不如元代還隱約存在，因此「浙學」概念已逐漸模糊。清代以後學者對「浙學」概念的省察與解釋，雖與元、明代以前著重地理分隸關係大致類似，但個別學者的見解仍有所差別，清代學者對「浙學」議題之闡發，最重要的當屬全祖望與章學誠。而就浙學研究的難題而言，因中國學者過分誇大「浙學」學術及文化的影響力，故有必要重新檢討迄今尚未有定論的「新學」概念，並建立一完整的「浙學」學術架構。本文乃提出以下的假設可能：在浙東學術的理論體系中，以永嘉之學為主體的「浙學」，不僅能提出明確而有力的解釋，說明其具有的宏觀理論，同時也能有像二程、朱子所強調的超越性價值根源的支援。永嘉學者所提倡的經制、事功及史學乃是自有其價值根源。

Current challenge of Zhejiang learning research is that scholars failed to form a consensus within the connotation of ＂Zhejiang learning＂, therefore this article first has to clarify the Song Dynasty to the Qing Scholars' ＂Zhejiang learning＂ concepts. Although the Ming Dynasty scholars' ＂Zhejiang learning＂ concepts were inherited the Song Neo-Confucianism issues, school pedigree relationship was not as good as the Yuan Dynasty, and then ＂Zhejiang learning＂ concepts had gradually blurred. The Qing Dynasty scholars engaging in introspection and explanation of ＂Zhejiang learning＂ concepts were similar to the Yuan and Ming focused on geographical demarcation, but there were individual differences in academic insights. The most important persons who elucidated ＂Zhejiang learning＂ issues were Quan Zu-wang and Zhang Xue-cheng in Qing Dynasty. Due to Chinese scholars overstated ＂Zhejiang learning＂ academic and cultural influences, it was necessary to re-examine the as yet inconclusive ＂Zhejiang learning＂ concepts and build a complete ＂Zhejiang learning＂ academic structure. This article therefore came up with the following assumptions: In eastern Zhejiang academic theoretical system, Yongjia school as the main subject of ＂Zhejiang learning＂ not only had a clear and convincing explanation for its macroscopic theory, but also could have like Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi emphasized the transcendent value roots. In fact, Yongjia scholars advocated that the Jing-zhi, utilitarianism and historiography would had their roots.