中國古代文學批評有二大基本型態：一是由漢代詩騷箋注所形成的「情志批評」；一是以魏晉六朝文體學為理論基礎，運用到實際批評的「文體批評」。 其中，特別值得注意的是：「情志批評」涵具著存有論的特質。它優先性的意義不在於建構可以論證其是非正誤的客觀性知識，而在於批評者所獲致的主觀性「反身性詮釋效用」。古代士人往往經由經典的詮釋，與作者進行生命存在經驗的相互通感，同時也寄託自己的政教意識型態。其中，隱涵著士人對生命存在價值的終極關懷，以及對當代政教的批判。因此，中國古代的「情志批評」，從現代知識論性質的研究進路，很難獲得深切的理解；研究者必須調適可資對應的詮釋視域。 不過，這並非表示以往學界對「情志批評」所做專業知識的研究，都沒有價值而應該廢棄。「情志批評」當然也有它「知識論」的意義，只不過「存有論」的意義更為優先，不能被忽視。因此，「情志批評」之存有論的意義理解，如何與認識論的知識建構，彼此做出有效的接合？這應該是往後的研究發展中，我們可以用心思辨進而解決的重要問題。

There are two fundamental critical styles in classical Chinese literature field. One is Emotion-Intention Criticism, and the other is Stylistic Criticism, Six Dynasties. Significantly, Emotion-Intention Criticism has the ontological characteristic. Its prior meaning does not lie in the constructing an objective knowledge framework that can prove right from wrong, but the critics can obtain a subjective viewpoint on “The Effectiveness of Reflexivity Interpretation”: through Interpretation, the ancient literati obtain a sense of “Sensuscommunis” with the author, and then address their “Political-Bildung Ideology” in a metaphorical way. It shows the literati’s caring for the value of ‘Being’ and their criticism toward the political and bildung at that time. The Emotion-Intention Criticism indeed has the composition of epistemology, but the significance of ontology outweighs epistemology in terms of importance. Therefore, how we comprehend the meaning of ontology while combining the knowledge construction of epistemology? This should be an important issue we should pay more attention to in further research.