在氣學系譜上，王廷相與吳廷翰屬於同一型態思想家，二者皆以氣為本體，都反對在氣之上，另立一超越的理體或道體。程朱理學是他們在儒學內部共同論辯的對手，只是由《吉齋漫錄．卷下》可知，吳廷翰更集中批判陸王心學之非。本文以天道論與人性論聚焦，旨在從二者「大同」之處，辨析「小異」。在天道觀上，二者都借重張載「虛空即氣」的哲學觀點，從氣化流行說明萬象之生成變化，並由氣為真實無妄的恆存之「有」，破除老氏無中生有，以及釋氏視世間為幻化之說。不過在「天是否有定體？」以及「五行生成之序」上，二者所構築的世界圖像，卻並不相同。在人性論上，二者皆即生以言性，反對人在有生之前，另有一本然的天地之性。王廷相認為才說到人之性，即是帶著氣質而言，吳廷翰更進一步反對使用「氣質之性」一詞，主張性即氣、氣即性。不過，王廷相承繼張載「心統性情」說，吳廷翰則以「性」為生之主，批判「心」豈能統「性」。再者，二人雖都同意明道即生言性，但對明道所謂「論性不論氣不備」，王廷相高度肯定，吳廷翰卻極力批評。由此可見二者在引證與詮釋前賢之言時的同中之異。

In pedigree of theory of Qi, Ting-Hsiang Wang and Ting-Han Wu were the same kind of thinkers, as they both relied on Qi as the substance, and were both against the construction of another Li Ti or Tao Ti over Qi. Neo-Confucianism was the subject of their debate in Confucianism. However, according to “Ji Zhai Man Lu. Volume II”, TingHan Wu focused on the criticism on the Mind Philosophy of Lu-Wang School. Based on the Theory of Natural Law and the Theory of Human Nature, this paper probes into the “minor difference” from their “major similarity”. In terms of view of natural law, they both adopted the philosophical perspective “emptiness is Qi” of Zai Zhang, and elaborated on the formation and change of all kinds of phenomenon by Qi Hua Liu Xing. They broke through existence from the emptiness of Lao-tzu and the Buddhist statement that the world is an illusion by Qi as realistic and permanent “existence”. However, in terms of “fixed mass of heaven” and “sequence of formation of Five Elements”, they did not construct the same world image. In terms of the Theory of Human Nature, they both elaborated on the nature by physical desire, and expressed against men’s another nature before physical desire. Ting-Hsiang Wang argued that human nature was based on temperament, while Ting-Han Wu further opposed the term “nature of temperament” and argued that nature is Qi and Qi is nature. Nevertheless, Ting-Hsiang Wang carried on “mind unifies nature and temperament” suggested by Zai Zhang. Ting-Han Wu adopted “nature” as the base of physical desire, and disagreed that “mind” can control “nature”. In addition, although they both agreed with the nature based on physical desire of Mingdao, Ting-Hsiang Wang highly approved the “discussion of nature without temperament is incomplete” of Mingdao, whereas Ting-Han Wu harshly criticized the statement. This shows their difference when citing and interpreting the statements of the predecessors.