許多學者皆同意明代氣學內部必須再予以分類，然而對於如何分類，各家學者便有不同的意見。本文由韓邦奇、魏校兩人的思想切人，發現韓邦奇以無極和太極形容本體之氣，對於無形之氣有更多重視，從而重視整全而至善的未發性理，並透過養心之法，未發敬以持之、已發省察以合道，使本有、整全之善性，不被私欲所障蔽，得以被突顯。魏校在《莊渠遺書》中亦將氣、理皆分為兩層，並重視形上之氣的渾淪之理，此「氣該如此之理」雖非最高本體，但因為是至善、整全之性理，魏校認為比起有善、有不善的形下之氣更為重要。因此魏校主張以能妙合理、氣之心為主宰，靜時存養此心，動時省察主一，以心變化氣質，返回至善性理，回到原初的純樸之道。韓邦奇和魏校兩人思想如此接近，皆主張「返回氣之至善」的原初性理，和同時期的羅欽順共同形成了另一種氣學的思想面貌。若和王廷相以及後來的清代戴震氣學主張「發展氣以成善」的思想相比，是兩種皆以氣為本體，思維卻截然不同的氣學形態。

Many scholars agree Qi Philosophy in Ming Dynasty must be subdivided, but there is still no consensus. Han Ban-Qi and Wei Jiao had demonstrated they value the metaphysical qi more than physically one. They also both advocate how to eliminate personal desire from humanity, and return to the Supreme Good through mind as a necessary result. There is very different from Wang Ting-Xiang and Dai Chen whose propose developing the ability to the Supreme Good. In conclusion, there are two different types of Qi Philosophy in Ming Dynasty: Han Ban-Qi and Wei Jiao stand for one point of view, and Wang Ting-Xiang stands for another.

韓邦奇;魏校;氣學;王廷相;戴震;羅欽順

Han Ban-Qi;Wei Jiao;The Qi Philosophy;Wang Ting-Xiang;Dai Chen;Luo Qin-shun