王廷相（浚川， 1474-1544）在〈橫渠理氣辯〉中表示，是藉張載（橫渠， 1120-1177）氣論批判朱子（晦庵， 1130-1200）「性即理」說。但若理氣心性本是一貫論述，則張載與王廷相在人性論、工夫論上的南轅北轍，是否意味二者氣論僅是貌似相同？實屬兩套氣論型態？依此，本文旨在辨析張載與王廷相氣論同異。在研究進路上，本文分為五項環節展開：一者，澄清王廷相所徵引的論點，在《正蒙》中的原意為何？二者，指出朱子未依張載哲學闡明造化之真，並非對橫渠氣論陌生。三者，援引當代學者的研究成果，歸納出衡斷張載、王廷相氣論異同的三種觀點。四者，參照前輩學者檢證氣學的方法進路，依照張與王在人性論上之異，向上追問此相異之處是如何連貫於二人氣論的基本假定，辨析二者在氣論型態上之異同。五者，探究在已知的三種觀點外，若將《正蒙》「太虛即氣」中的虛氣關係列入考慮，可細分出第四種辨析張載與王廷相氣論同異的觀點。

In the Defense of Zhang Zai’s Theories Regarding Li and Qi橫渠理氣辯, Wang Tingxiang used Zhang Zai’s theory of Qi to criticize Zhu Xi’s朱熹 doctrine identifying “the nature as principle.” However, if it is supposed that conceptions of li 理, qi 氣, xin 心, and xing 性 form a fundamentally consistent discourse, then could the drastic differences between Zhang’s and Wang’s views of the human nature and moral self-cultivation imply that dissimilar philosophies underlie the surface similarities in their theories of Qi? This study seeks to answer this question by comparing the Qi theories developed by Zhang Zai and Wang Tingxiang. The argument proceeds in five parts. First, I clarify the ideas cited or quoted by Wang, and investigate their original meanings in the Zheng Meng正蒙. Second, I assert that the fact that Zhu Xi did not rely on Zhang’s philosophy to explicate the truth of creation does not necessarily mean that Zhu was unfamiliar with Zhang’s doctrine of Qi. Third, I review three contemporary perspectives on the similarities and differences in Zhang’s and Wang’s theories of Qi. Fourth, I reference the methods and approaches adopted by previous scholars to explore how differences in Zhang’s and Wang’s theories of human nature were related to their fundamental hypotheses concerning Qi. Fifth, I contend that consideration of the idea that “the universe is qi” 太虛即氣 leads to the establishment of a fourth perspective from which to compare Zhang’s and Wang’s theories of Qi.