羅欽順由「理、氣和心、性一貫而不同一」的主張，反對理、氣二分及性之二分，並以此抨擊張載。但其實羅欽順較為重視「理一」和「道心」，並強調須返回本體之氣以臻於至善的傾向，和張載言「太虛即氣」時注重「神」，以及言「天命之性」時強調須返回以完成性善的思想，其實十分相似。是以本文認為同樣以氣作為本體的張載和羅欽順思想，同樣有著強調「返復」本體之氣的傾向，和王廷相、戴震等明清氣學家相較，應屬另一種氣學的思維。

Luo Qin-shun had criticized Chang Tsai who had advocated the discrete in principle and qi. This is because he had advocated the principle of qi and qi are intimate but not the same thing, and he had valued the principle more than manifestations. He had also emphasized the distinction between dao-xin（道心） and ren-xin（人心）, and he also had valued the importance of dao-xin（道心）. But Chang Tsai had persistently thought the metaphysical and physical through the motion of material force, and he had onesidedly emphasized the metaphysical. So he had emphasized the Great Vacuity, the Spirit and the nature of Heaven and Earth. Therefor the consistent context of “returning” is the same philosophical attitude between Luo Qin-shun and Chang Tsai.