本文目的在於從牟宗三「以心著性」的判定為焦點，來討論五峰與蕺山思想之異同。
首先，胡五峰思想的確是先區分心與性，再強調「盡心成性」的「以心著性」之型態。並且，從他對《中庸》的「已發未發」問題的討論到闢佛思想以及「天理人欲」的諸觀點，皆有「以心著性」的型態為其義理背景。
而且，本文以為蕺山思想是較五峰進一步從「以心著性」又講出了「心性合一」。但是，他並非不承認性體、道體的客觀超越性，只是他反對單言一孤高的超絕之性體、道體。
而且，本文又以為五峰、蕺山的「以心著性」型態的獨特性，必須從宋明理學之發展史中見出，即五峰是相對於同時代的朱熹、陸象山，而獨能承繼北宋三家周、張、明道之「天道性命相貫通」的古義，而劉蕺山也是將王學所忽略的儒家道德形上學及「天道性命相貫通」的意義重新加以正視，故他絕非僅可歸屬於心學。

This paper discusses the two Neo-Confucian scholars’ similarities and dissimilarities, through Mou Zhongshan’s (牟宗三) claim that Hu Wufeng (胡五峰) and Liu Jishan (劉蕺山) belong to the Type of “Revealing of Human Nature with Heart/Mind.” (以心著性)
First, we believe that Hu Wufeng actually discriminates between Heart (心,心體) and Human Nature (性,性體). His thoughts of “Revealing of Human Nature with Heart/Mind” are found in his discussions on Doctrine of the Mean (《中庸》), Critique of Buddhism and his opinions of “Principle of Heaven and Human Lust.” (天理人欲)
Secondly, Liu Jishan’s thought not only belongs to the Type of “Revealing of Human Nature with Heart/Mind” but also emphasizes that “Heart/Mind and Human Nature are one.” (心性合一) But Liu Jishan would not deny that Human Nature and Tao (道,道體) are transcendental. He just opposes the idea of regarding Human Nature and Tao as isolated and individual entities.
Furthermore, the uniqueness of Hu Wufeng and Liu Jishan in the history of Neo-Confucianismis is undeniable. Hu Wufen’s thought of “The Oneness of the Way of Heaven, Human Nature and Mandate” (天道性命相貫通) is different from Zhu Xi (朱熹) and Lu Xiang-shan’s (陸象山) philosophy. So we can say Hu Wufen has inherited Chou Dun-Yi (周敦頤) , Zhang Zai (張載) and Cheng Mingdao’s (程明道) thought. Similarly, Liu Jishan emphasizes the meaning of “The Oneness of the Way of Heaven, Human Nature and Mandate” and the moral metaphysical aspect of Confucianism. Conclusively, his thoughts are different from the school of Wang Yang-ming (王陽明) and do not belong to the Philosophy of Mind (心學).