德國的荀子研究有兩種相反的典型，一種是柯斯妥 (Hermann Köster) 主張有所謂「中國式宇宙一體論」世界觀的解法；另一種是羅哲海 (Heiner Roetz) 主張無所謂「中國式宇宙一體論」世界觀的解法。雖然兩者都認為中國人和西方人在作為人的思考邏輯上是相通的，因此都認為中西哲學可以比論，但是前者認為荀子的「止一」思想是古代中國神秘思想的代表之一，可補治現代西方人科技生活所帶來的毛病，需要西方漢學家仔細透過追究字義的做法來模擬了解，而後者則認為荀子的「天人兩分」，思想是中國古代戡天役物思想的代表，不但可讓西方人解除所謂「中國式宇宙一體論」的迷思，而且有助於對治現今中國人破壞環境的不良行徑，需要加以揭發。前者為學所訴諸的是較細柔含蓄的「一體觀」，論法也較文學性，比較自制和體貼荀子，認為有活力的荀子譯解可以溝通不同語言文化之間的意義世界，產生內在性的整合；後者為學所訴諸的則是較粗硬明白的「一體觀」，論法也較哲學性，比較自是和強架荀子，認為只須邏輯地分析清楚荀子的主張就知道中國古人也跟西方現代人一樣，有戡天役物的想法。這兩種「一體觀」都是西方式的「一體觀」，都不適合作為解明荀子想法的立場。

There are two kinds of opposite models in German Xunzi 荀子 studies. One is Hermann Köster's model, which maintains that there is a so-called “Chinese Universalism.” Another one is Heiner Roetz's model, which advocates that there is no such a thing as “Chinese Universalism.” Although both of them ascertain that Western and Chinese thought can and should be compared, the former thinks Xunzi's thought of “keeping to the holistic” represents a mystical thinking-style different from and at the same time helpful for the modern Westerner's scientific and technological life while the latter thinks Xunzi's thought of “Heaven and Man being separated” shows that ancient Chinese also thought of subduing nature, and this fact should be disclosed for the benefit of environmentalism. It is a softer and more implicit universal view that the former appeals to in order to learn from and talk about Xunzi, thinking that this would help to materialize the inherently integrative communication between different languages and cultures. On the contrary, it is a harder and more explicit universal view that the latter appeals to in order to interpret Xunzi more logically and clearly, thinking that this would tell the truth that ancient Chinese also subdued nature. These two kinds of universal view are both universal views of Western style, and are not suitable for interpreting Xunzi's ideas.