本文的目的是對羅念菴的哲學型態進行定位。首先，從念菴思想的形成的「三變」進行研究，以為這三階段並非指三種思想型態的轉變，而是同一種「主靜無欲」思想型態的不同面貌之展現，視為同一種型態的逐漸深化與發展。對於念菴哲學的定位問題而言，本文以為聶雙江、羅念菴的思想必須與陽明學完全區分，尤其是羅念菴，他根本不認為自己是陽明的弟子，故更沒有理由把他視為王門之後。而且，念菴哲學也沒有雙江二分已發、未發，割裂心體等問題，故他也要與聶雙江有所區別。念菴是直接上溯至北宋濂溪、明道的主靜、識仁思想，並加上做楊龜山、李延平與陳白沙的「超越的體證」工夫，這實是修正並發展了雙江的歸寂。

The purpose of this paper is to define the core thought of Luo Nian-an’s philosophy. First, the projectresearches Luo Nian-an’s “Three Changes”. We consider that the socalled “Three Changes” does not mean three different ideologies. Instead. the “Three Changes” represents Luo Nian-an’s theories of “Emphasizing Tranquility” and “Desirelessness”— a multifaceted presentation and development of Luo’s philosophy “Returning to the Stillness”. As for the positioning of Luo Nian-an’s philosophy, thispaperholds that both Nieh Shuang-chiang and Luo Nian-an’s thoughts must be completely differentiated with Wang Yang-ming’s school of thoughts. This is especially true for Luo Nian-an, who did not see himself as a disciple of Yang-ming at all. As a result, there is no reason to regard Luo as one of Yang-ming’s followers. Moreover. Luo Nian-an’s thought is not the same as Nieh Shuang-chiang’s in terms of the implication and fulfillment of human conscience. In other words, Luo’s idea of conscience is not “divided” as Nieh’s.Therefore, the author of thispaperbelieves Luo Nian-an and Nieh Shuangjiang’s philosophies should be treated differently. Luo Nian-an’s philosophy has inherited Northern Song Dynasty scholars Zhou Lien-xi’s “Emphasizing Tranquility” and Cheng Ming-dao’s “Understanding the Nature of Ren”. Also, Luo Nian-an’s philosophy includes Yang Gui-shan, Lee Yan-ping and Chen Bai-sha’s philosophical Types of Transcendental Recognition. As a result, we think that Luo Nian-an has modified Shuang-chiang’s “Returning to the Stillness” and enhanced it.