朝鮮後期，畿湖學派的權尚夏與弟子李柬、韓元震就「性即理」是否可以補全為「性即理之在氣」這一問題通過幾次的書信往來展開了論辯。同意補全的權尚夏和韓元震站在現實角度認為「理」必須寓於「氣」中才能形成「性」，所以本性之中無論何時都是理氣共存並同時具有善與惡的種子。反對補全的李柬站在價值的角度認為在成「性」之前「理」先於「氣」而存在，而只有強調本性中「理」的內容才能彰顯「性」的意義。這三人之間的觀念差異基本上延續了嶺南學派與畿湖學派在理氣觀上的分歧，這個分歧亦是朝鮮性理學發展的重要線索。

In the late Chosun Dynasty, Gwon Sangha (權尚夏) of the Jihu (畿湖) school argued with his disciples Yi Kan (李柬) and Han Wonjin (韓元震) over whether “human nature is Li (性即理)” could be completed as “human nature is Li resided in Qi (性即理之在氣)” through several correspondences. Gwon Sangha and Han Wonjin who agreed to the complete proposition believed from a realistic point of view that Li must be contained in Qi to form human nature. Therefore, Li and Qi can coexist all the time in human nature to generate both good and evil seeds simultaneously. Yi Kan, who opposed the complete proposition, believed from the perspective of value that Li has its pre-existence compared with Qi before the formation of human nature, and only emphasizing the content of Li can reveal the true meaning of human nature. The different opinions between the three basically continue the differences between the Youngnam (嶺南) School and the Jihu School in the view of Li and qi, which is also an important clue for the development of the neo-confucianism in Korea.