戴震《中庸補注》反對朱熹以「理」為道之隱微本體，強調道既不隱蔽，也不神秘，只是萬事萬物的安排妥當、得宜而已。遠離人事、萬物的玄虛存在，以及離開日用行事而言的「素隱行怪」之行都不是道。戴震也反對朱熹由道體、道用來詮釋未發、已發之說，強調中、和並非體、用之關係，而是一靜、一動的差異。戴震也認為修道與修身關係極為密切，修道不能離開日用實事，因此他反對朱熹別立一聖人之教法，以為人的行為準則的思想。不過也不宜就認為《中庸補注》與戴震後期著作的反理學傾向完全一致，在撰寫《中庸補注》時，戴震明顯仍未建立起一己的「理」觀，所以對於朱熹《中庸章句》中屢次出現關於「理」的文字，並未一一加以批評；《中庸補注》亦無以「欲」作為人性主要內容的思想。若對照《原善》對朱熹之理已有所批判，以及以欲為性、以欲為仁等思想，《中庸補注》未必如學者所言，著成時間介於《原善》與《孟子字義疏證》之間，而似應是約略同時甚至更早的作品，代表戴震思想初期反對理學的先聲。

Tai Chen had opposed Zhu Xi who made Principle as the secret essence of the Way, Tai chen had believed the Way is just everything has been properly arranged. The hidden and weird behavior is not the Way, either. Tai Chen had also opposed Zhu Xi’s discussion about “to initiate and non-initiate”, he thought “to initiate and non-initiate” means “stillness and movement”, not “essence and action”. But the thought of “anti Neo-Confucianism” is different from Supplementary Notes of the Mean to the other Tai Chen’s books. Tai Chen had not established his own view about Principle then, so he hadn’t criticized all part of Zhu Xi’s theory of Principle. For the reason we consider that Supplementary notes of the Mean is not behind Investigate into What Is Good.