本文以馮友蘭一九四九年以後的哲學思想為研究對象，分析了馮友蘭在一般與特殊、邏輯分析法以及精神境界說等三方面的哲學思想，並試圖解決「一個馮友蘭抑或兩個馮友蘭」的問題，亦即馮友蘭的後期思想是否與前期思想融貫一致的問題。本文認為，一般與特殊的關係問題在馮友蘭後期哲學思想中仍是主要問題。在這個問題上，他前期堅持新理學的新實在論立場，五十年代初有概念論的傾向，晚年的觀點則介乎概念論和實在論之間。馮友蘭認為一般和特殊的問題是由邏輯分析得來的，邏輯分析就是應用內涵和外延等形式邏輯將事物區分為一般和特殊兩個方面。馮友蘭應用這個方法分析了中國哲學中的概念和命題。他認為，先秦哲學中的名實問題，魏晉玄學中的有無問題以及宋明道學中的理氣問題都是圍繞著一般和特殊的關係問題展開的。馮友蘭認為人們對一般和特殊之間關係的不同認識，所表現出的精神境界也不同。他的精神境界說還討論了精神境界的感受，修養工夫以及兩種哲學思維方式的問題。在本文的最後，通過前期思想與後期思想在以上三個方面的比較，得出以下結論，即馮友蘭的後期哲學思想基本上與前期思想融貫一致，可以看做是新理學的改造和發展。

　　　　　This essay would like to investigate Feng's philosophy after 1949, specifically utilizing his book “New History of Chinese Philosophy”. The essay will take on three perspectives, namely; logical analysis methodology and how it relates to the mind and the relationship between universals and particulars. After going through the above analysis. A question of one Feng or two Fengs is raised. That is to say is the thought in Feng's earlier thinking consistent with his later period. This essay contends that universals and particulars was still an important question for Feng in his later period. Concerning this question, Feng, in his earlier period, strongly maintained a neo-realistic stance based on his “Xin Li Xue (新理學)”. In the early 19 50's-he tended towards Conceptualism and his stance in his later period lay between that of Conceptualism and Realism. Feng considered the problem of universals and particulars to have come out of logical analysis. Logical analysis employs connotation and extension in forming the split between universals and particulars. Feng utilized this method in analysing certain concepts and propositions in the history of Chinese philosophy. He considered the questions of “names and realities” in pre-Chin philosophy, “(有, 無) you, wu” in Wei-Jin Taoism and Sung-Ming Taoism's “(理氣) Li Chi" all to have developed from the notion of unviersals and part iculars. Feng held that because all men had different knowledge of the relationship between universals and particulars, the subsequent “states” of mind thus reached would be different. His theory on this state of mind also included discussing on the state of mind felt, ascetic action necessary for its perfectism and the question of two ways of philosophical thinking. In the last part of this essay, after analysing Feng's earlier and later periods and scrutinizing his three-fold approach to understanding the history of Chinese philosophy, we hope to see that the two periods really blended to create a whole philosophy. That is to say the remolding and development of his “Xin Li Xue (新理學)”.