조선성리학계는 1876년 개항 이후 서구문명의 유입으로 커다란 도전에 직면했다. 그러나 그들은 여전히 전통적인 학설을 고수하면서 이를 비판하는 움직임에 제재를 가하고자 하였다. 그 대표적인 것으로 20세기 초 淵齋學派가 李珥의 학설을 비판하였던 蘆沙 奇正鎭의 학설에 반론을 제기하고 이어 같은 주리론으로서 노사학설을 옹호한 화서학파에 대한 비판을 들 수 있다. 노사학설에 대한 비판은 영남지역 연재학파에 의해 시작되었다. 이들은 먼저 1900년에 申得求의 ‘天에도 人心과 私惡이 있다’라는 견해를 이이의 학설과 다른 이단으로 규정하고 연재학파에서 신득구를 파문한 이후, 다시 1902년 4월 기정진의 문집이 목판본으로 간행되자 「외필」의 글이 이이를 비난한 것으로 간주하고, 이단배척과 정학의 수호차원에서 노사학설을 타파하고자 하였다. 이들은 이 사실을 호서지역의 宋秉璿이나 宋秉珣 등의 연재학파나 田愚에게도 알렸고, 영남지역의 노론 들을 규합하여 대궐에까지 상소하려고 하였다. 상소문은 연재학파인 권명희에 의해 작성되었다. 권명희는 기정진이 이이가 말한 ‘機自爾 非有使之’에 대해 리가 아무런 역할도 하지 못하고 천명이 끊긴다고 비판한 것을 반박하였다. 그는 이이의 ‘氣有爲, 理無爲’의 개념을 받아들이면서도 리는 기를 부리는 妙가 있기 때문에 천명이 끊이지 않는다고 주장했다. 권명희는 오히려 기정진이 리를 유위한 기로 잘못 보고 있다고 비판하였다. 이어 송병선은 영남과 호서의 문인들에게 기정진의 학설이 유리론으로서 이이의 학설과 다르다고 하였고, 이항로의 문인 최익현이 기정진의 신도비명에서 ‘斥邪明理’를 주장한 것에 대해 이이와 기호학계를 비난한 것으로 비판하였다. 또한 송병순도 기정진의 학설을 주희와 이이를 비난한 斯文亂賊으로 규정하여 처벌할 것을 주장하였다. 그는 機 개념에 이기가 묘합되어 있다고 보아 리가 기를 부리는 묘라는 권명희의 주장을 더욱 발전시켰다. 이러한 주장은 機는 단지 기만을 가리킨다고 주장한 전우에 의해 반박되었으나, 송병선은 현실에서 이기가 妙合되는 측면을 중시하고 화서학파 등의 학설도 주리의 종지를 열고 도술을 분열시키는 행위로 비판하였다. 당시 기정진이 이이의 ‘기자이 비유사지’를 비판한 것은 리의 절대적인 주재를 주장함으로써 군신, 부부, 부자, 華夷 등의 가치관의 전도를 막는데 목적이 있었다. 반대로 연재학파와 전우는 이이 학설을 계승하는 측면에서 기정진의 설을 비판하였다. 연재학파는 理氣가 통합되어지는 현실을 중시하였으며, 리를 중시하는 주리론이 양명학으로 빠질 것을 우려하였다. 전우는 표준이 되는 성을 구현하기 위해 심의 실천적인 노력이 있어야 하는데 리를 중시하면 마음을 리가 된다고 잘못 믿고 마음대로 행하는 잘못이 있게 된다고 비판하였던 것이다. 그러나 이들 학파 간의 차이에도 불구하고 여전히 리의 역할이나 리의 가치를 결코 부정하지는 않았다.

The academic world of Cho-Son Neo-Confucianism was confronted by challenge with an inflow of Western civilization after the opening of parts in 1876. But They want to take sanction against movements criticizing this, as ever keeping to the existing theory. One of the typical cases is Song Byongseon(宋秉璿), Yeonjae school(淵齋學派) which brings forth a counter-argument to Gi Jung Jin(奇正鎭) in the early 20th century, with a pen name of Nosan who adheres closely to a critical viewpoint against Lee Yi(李珥) scholar's theory, and retort against Lee Hang ro(李恒老)'s school that advocates Nosa's theory(蘆沙學說) from the standpoint of a theory putting the high value to principle. This argument commenced with a question by Yeonjae school(淵齋學派) in Youngnam area They first refuted Shin Duk Koo(申得求) asserting that heaven keeps the will of man and evil as heresy different from Lee Li's theory and expelled him from Yeonjae school. Since then, they considered Oi-Phil(「猥筆」) by Gi Jung Jin as blame for Lee Yi's theory when the wooden edition of The Master Nohsa's Literature Collection(『蘆沙先生文集』) was republished in April 1902 and tried to pull down Nosa's theory as a matter of rejecting heresy and defending orthodoxy. They also informed the fact to Song Byongseon(宋秉璿), Song Yeonjae school's leader, Song Byongsun(宋秉珣), and even Jeon Woo(田愚). They even tried to rally Noron(老論) in Youngnam area and go to the royal palace aiming at presenting a memorial to the king. The memorial paper was wtitten by Song Byongseon's disciple, Geon Myonghee(權命熙). He refuted Gi Jung Jin asserting that the principle cannot play an any role, which is Gi(機) spontaneously moves but is not controlled by others(機自爾, 非有使之), mentioned by Lee Yi. He consented Lee Yi's opinion, “principle is nonactive; material force is active(氣有爲, 理無爲)." But he asserted a mandate from Heaven keep on here because principle implies adroitness(妙) so that principle can handle material force. On the contrary, he criticized that Gi Jung Jin fell into error in which he thoughts of principle as an active material force. And Song Byongseon said to his diciples in Youngnam and Hoseo area that Gi Jung Jin's theory is different from Lee Yi scholar's theory in that it assists principle only, and at the same time, he criticized Lee Hang ro's diciple Choi Yikheon(崔益鉉) arguing for ‘the exclusion of the vicious and manifestation of principle(斥邪明理)' in the Shin-Do-Bi-Myung(神道碑銘 - a kind of epitaph) for Gi Jung Jin written by Choi Ik Hyun as blaming the philosophy of Lee Yi or Giho Scholars' faction Song Byongsun consecutively contended that Gi Jung Jin's theory should be criticized because it is the enemy of confusing confucianism. He developed Geon Myonghee's proposal, asserting adroitness as the core idea in that principle can handle material force. In the end, he argued that principle be in harmony with material force in the conception of Gi(機). Jeon Woo refuted this viewpoint by maintaining that Gi(機) only signified material force. Nevertheless, Song Byongsun did't give up his standpoint by emphasizing that principle adroitly be in harmony with material force in actuality.

The academic world of Cho-Son Neo-Confucianism was confronted by challenge with an inflow of Western civilization after the opening of parts in 1876. But They want to take sanction against movements criticizing this, as ever keeping to the existing theory. One of the typical cases is Song Byongseon(宋秉璿), Yeonjae school(淵齋學派) which brings forth a counter-argument to Gi Jung Jin(奇正鎭) in the early 20th century, with a pen name of Nosan who adheres closely to a critical viewpoint against Lee Yi(李珥) scholar's theory, and retort against Lee Hang ro(李恒老)'s school that advocates Nosa's theory(蘆沙學說) from the standpoint of a theory putting the high value to principle. This argument commenced with a question by Yeonjae school(淵齋學派) in Youngnam area They first refuted Shin Duk Koo(申得求) asserting that heaven keeps the will of man and evil as heresy different from Lee Li's theory and expelled him from Yeonjae school. Since then, they considered Oi-Phil(「猥筆」) by Gi Jung Jin as blame for Lee Yi's theory when the wooden edition of The Master Nohsa's Literature Collection(『蘆沙先生文集』) was republished in April 1902 and tried to pull down Nosa's theory as a matter of rejecting heresy and defending orthodoxy. They also informed the fact to Song Byongseon(宋秉璿), Song Yeonjae school's leader, Song Byongsun(宋秉珣), and even Jeon Woo(田愚). They even tried to rally Noron(老論) in Youngnam area and go to the royal palace aiming at presenting a memorial to the king. The memorial paper was wtitten by Song Byongseon's disciple, Geon Myonghee(權命熙). He refuted Gi Jung Jin asserting that the principle cannot play an any role, which is Gi(機) spontaneously moves but is not controlled by others(機自爾, 非有使之), mentioned by Lee Yi. He consented Lee Yi's opinion, “principle is nonactive; material force is active(氣有爲, 理無爲)." But he asserted a mandate from Heaven keep on here because principle implies adroitness(妙) so that principle can handle material force. On the contrary, he criticized that Gi Jung Jin fell into error in which he thoughts of principle as an active material force. And Song Byongseon said to his diciples in Youngnam and Hoseo area that Gi Jung Jin's theory is different from Lee Yi scholar's theory in that it assists principle only, and at the same time, he criticized Lee Hang ro's diciple Choi Yikheon(崔益鉉) arguing for ‘the exclusion of the vicious and manifestation of principle(斥邪明理)' in the Shin-Do-Bi-Myung(神道碑銘 - a kind of epitaph) for Gi Jung Jin written by Choi Ik Hyun as blaming the philosophy of Lee Yi or Giho Scholars' faction Song Byongsun consecutively contended that Gi Jung Jin's theory should be criticized because it is the enemy of confusing confucianism. He developed Geon Myonghee's proposal, asserting adroitness as the core idea in that principle can handle material force. In the end, he argued that principle be in harmony with material force in the conception of Gi(機). Jeon Woo refuted this viewpoint by maintaining that Gi(機) only signified material force. Nevertheless, Song Byongsun did't give up his standpoint by emphasizing that principle adroitly be in harmony with material force in actuality.

Gi(機) spontaneously moves but is not controlled by others (機自爾, 非有使之), Yeonjae school(淵齋學派) Nosa's theory(蘆沙學說), principle is nonactive; material force is active(氣有爲, 理無爲), the exclusion of the vicious and manifestation of principle(斥邪明理)