本文針對哲學史上王陽明對朱熹批評的意見做反思，指出這些批評意見，從直接的材料上講，主要都是依據《大學》文本詮釋而來的，從陽明的哲學創作來講，又多是針對朱熹理論做反對而來，就此而言，王陽明實在是受到朱熹影響很深，兩人真正的差距，不像是哲學史上將程朱、陸王分為理學、心學兩派之差異那麼樣的極端。又從實際上王陽明所爭辯的問題來看，則多為朱熹工夫不得力的批評，這就又有屬於朱熹談工夫理論還是朱熹自己的工夫修養程度兩種問題，陽明亦是混淆此兩者。又從工夫理論的批評來講，陽明又有哲學基本問題的錯置，將朱熹談於工夫次第及形上學存有論問題的發言都從本體工夫的形式去批評，以致失去其批評的準確度。此外，還有從不同的先秦典籍之義理依據而做的文本詮釋之批評，以及對《大學》版本本身的意見不同之批評，但上述批評，還是可以化約到哲學基本問題的不同所致之批評。本文即以此為進路，說明陽明批評朱熹的意見是有可以被解消之處，關鍵即在問題意識不同。

This paper, taking ideas from history of philosophy, reflects on Wang, Yang-Ming’s criticisms of Chu, Xi. The reflection indicates that these critical ideas are all derived directly from Wang’s interpretation of Dah Xue (The Great Learning). Taking the perspective that nearly all Wang’s works are based on criticizing Chu’s theory, we can say however that Wang is deeply influenced by Chu. Actually, their difference is not that explicit as seen from the generally held distinction in history of philosophy between Cheng and Chu about Li (principle) school on the one hand and Lu and Wang about Xing (principle) school on the other. In fact, according to Wang’s criticisms which concentrated the limits of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu, we see clearly that the problem originated from Wang’s confusion of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu with Chu’s personal ability of Kung Fu. Moreover, on the Kung Fu theoretical level, Wang’s criticisms confused Chu’s theory of Kung Fu procedure and ontology with pure Kung Fu theory. Consequently this confusion caused the lost of accuracy. Besides, there were other problems relating to criticism based on different interpretations of Pre-Qing Dynasty texts and various views on deviating editions of Dah Xue. This paper however holds the view that these differences caused by referring to ancient texts can be attributed to their differences concerning their attitudes towards the fundamental philosophical problems. It is on this view that this paper argues that the difference between Wang and Chu can be resolved by elaborating their differing problematics.