勞思光先生在其《新編中國哲學史》中，對於儒學思想有十分特殊之理解與詮釋，其以為：「我不認為『心性論』必歸於『道德形上學』」，因而將整個儒學系統分成：由先秦儒學 (孔孟 ) 為代表的「心性論中心之哲學」、 及由漢代以下論及「天人關係」的「宇宙論中心之哲學」。 在如是之觀點下，《中庸》將被論定成「字宙論中心之漢代哲學」，而不為先秦孔、孟思想承繼之發展，並且先秦孔、孟家系，亦不具有」「道德形上學」之天命思想的部份。本文以為，勞先生對於儒學之區分是合法的，但是二者間之關係卻未必是相互排斥的，因為吾人對於存在之理解，未必只關心其自身之存在結構，而更可以是就存有或存有者對吾人而言的意義來加以探問。尤其對一個以生命為終極關懷、以道德實踐為優先考量的儒者而言，天地人我間的意義與價值，顯然是就其存在之客觀結構更為吾人所關切，同時亦更為真實而重要。勞先生將儒學限定在心性論而完全排斥形上學之討論，此不但不符合先秦儒學有關天道性命文獻之意義，也使得儒學之內容遭受到貧乏化之限制，當然，其對於《中庸》之理解及詮釋，也因此而更顯得問題重重，令人難以接受。

　　　　　In Law Si kugn's book entitit"Newly Areanged History of Chinese Philosophy", he has a uniqur understanding and interpretation of Confucian concepts. e believes that:the "Theory of Human Nature" does not necessarily belong to the scope of moral metaphysics. Thus, divided the entire system of Confucianism as "Philosophy of Human Nature", represented by early Qin Confucianism (Confucius and Mencius) and "Cosmic Centered Philosophy", discussions on "Heaven-Man Relationship" from Han Dynasty onwards. With this understanding, the "Book of Zhong Yong" is placed as the "Cosmic Centered Philosophy of Han Dynasty" instead of the continuation of Confucian and Mencian Philosophy. Hence, the Confucian system of early Qin would not include the concept of Heavenly Will in the moral metaphysics. We believe that the division of Confucianism by Lao Si Kuang is logical, but it does not mean that the relationships between these two divided parts are mutually exclusive. This is because the understanding of "Being" does not mean only the concern on "Self", but also with regards to the meaning of "Being". Especially, to one whose ultimate concern is about life and moral practice. the value of the objective relationship between Heaven, Earth and "Self" is obviously more important. Lao Si Kuang limits Confucianism in the context of "Theory of Human Nature", therefore excludes the discussions on metaphysics. This not only does not coincide with early Qin Confucian interpretations on the meaning of Heavenly Will and Life; it also inhabits and devalues the contents of Confucianism. As a result, his understanding and interpretation of the "Book of Zhong Yong" becomes questionable and unacceptable.