王廷相為明代最為推崇張載氣論的思想家之一。但在人性論上，他卻屢屢引證程顥的言論，而與張載意見相左。王廷相反對「離氣言性」的論性進路。他指出，自張載以來，宋明儒者將人性分為「義理之性」和「氣質之性」，是一種背離孔子哲學的觀點。他認為，人性即是人的「氣質之性」，根本不存在著一種不同於人之氣質的「本然之性」。因此，王廷相不僅主張「生之謂性」說，強調人性兼具善惡，而且他認為這些論點都可以直接從程顥的思想中找到支持的證據。如此一來，彷彿二者在人性論上見解相通、立場相同。但在晚近宋明理學研究成果中，則是將前者歸屬於明代「氣本論」的代表者之一，而把後者視為「圓頓的一本論」的代表者。在此區分中，王廷相與程顥的思想卻呈現出明顯的差異。本文嘗試通過當代宋明理學的研究成果，並進一步指出，王廷相與程顥在人性論上的差異，不僅是前者以分解的方式而後者以圓頓的方式探討人性。更重要的是，由於王廷相在探討人性時不同於程顥的圓頓一本論；因此，兩人雖都肯定不當離開氣質之性而探討人性，但是程顥在一本論中仍圓融的接受「義理之性」和「氣質之性」的區分，而王廷相卻是根本的排除了人具有「義理之性」的可能。基於此，本文由「何謂人性？」、「人性是善？是惡？抑或二者兼具？」，以及「如何使人去惡從善？」三組議題，探討程顥與王廷相人性論的異同。

Wang Tingxiang is one of the most highly regarded Qi theory ideologists. Originally developed by Zhang Zai, Qi theory is about the human nature. However, Wang Tingxiang often quoted Cheng Hao's Qi theory which was different from Zhang Zai's. He pointed out that since Zhang Zai, neo-Confucian scholars have divided human nature into philosophical connotations and natural disposition. This division is accordingly deviated from traditional Confucian philosophy. He believed instead that human nature is a natural disposition and supported the idea of inherent qualities. He suggests that human nature includes both good and evil, persisting that all these arguments can be directly supported by Cheng Hao's ideas. In this way, it seems as if the two scholars had the same view on the theory of human nature. However, in the latest perspective of Neo-Confucianism researches, Wang Tingxiang is regarded as a representative of Monism of Qi from the Ming Dynasty, while Cheng Hao is a representative of the Theory of One Origin. From this perspective, there must be some significant differences between the two. This essay attempts to identify these differences. The former discussed human nature in an analytic way and the latter did it through the idea of integration. Of greatest importance is Wang Tingxiang's refusal of the aspect of integration. Although both basing their discussion of human nature on natural disposition, Cheng Hao accepted the division between philosophical connotations and natural disposition in his integration theory, whereas Wang Tingxiang absolutely refused the possibility of philosophical connotations. By taking their theories of human nature into account, this essay attempts to discuss the similarities and differences between Cheng Hao and Wang Tingxiang from the following three questions: What is human nature? Is human nature good, evil or both? Is it possible to remove evil and follow the good?