《大學》「格物」一詞，古今解者紛紜，爭訟不已。本文分疏歷代較具代表性的解說，辨其是非得失，指出東漢鄭玄及明王守仁之釋義，皆與《大學》本文序次相悖；而宋程頤、朱熹的窮理說則不免有混入自然物理之嫌，與《大學》專重人事者亦不相洽。明末瞿汝稷、清初萬斯大本《禮》家射位之義說格物，於義雖通，然串講前後文義，依然有所未周。諸家解說各有其不盡妥切之處。作者即本瞿、萬解讀的角度，進而轉據《易傳》「爻有等，故曰物」中「物」字，兼有遠近貴賤高下等差不同的物位，以及爻位變動不居兩方面含義，以之詮解格物。文中強調經文「物有本末，事有終始」並非如朱熹所說是結上文的語句，而是所以起下文益候。因此「格物」當與「物有本末」合併理解；而「物有本末」之「本末」，亦應與下文「本亂末治」連結解讀。「格」或訓至而止，或訓正，皆無不可；「物」則指已身變動不居之地位而言。如是則整段文義上下可以貫串；而「格物」實質含義當與孔門「正名」之義相通，其所涉範圍自限於人生倫理。

　　　　　There have been a number of interpretations of the term "ge wu" in the Great Learning by both ancient and contemporary scholars. In the present paper, the authoer selects some representative interpretations and analyzes their significance and accuracy. Among these are the interpretations made by Zheng Xuan in the Han Dynasty and Wang Shou-ren in the Ming dynasty, which do not correspond to the sequence listed in the original text of the Great Learning. The interpretations of Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi in the Song dynasty were more along the lines of scientific inquiry into nature, this differing form the emphasis on human affairs in the Great Learning. Finally, in the late Ming and early Qing. Qu Ruji and Wan Sida presented a new view that interpreted "ge wu" based on the posture of an archer while shooting arrows. Yet this interpretation is not satisfactory when reviewed in conjunction with the original context of "ge wu" in the Great Learning. The text of the pre-Qin Yi Zhuan, in commenting on "yao wei" (the position of lines in trigrams), referred to the "wu" of "ge wu" as the different positions of an individual in his family and society, as well as the variable nature of these positions. The author follows the view of Qu Ruji and Wan Sida, further combining it with the reference from the Yi Zhuan, in interpreting "ge wu." In accordance with this new approach, the meaning of "ge wu" coincides with Confucius' "zheng ming," or "rectification of names." This new interpretation fits well with the entire text of the Great Learning.