「情志批評」一詞在學術界中被提出，至今恐怕已逾25 年。它從 一篇論文中的一個部分，漸漸被一些中國文學研究者當做方法論上的 依據，在觀念上和認知上造成了不小的影響，而也影響研究者對中國 古代文學的解讀。然而對「情志批評」理論的探究與批判；甚至退一 步說連爬梳與建構，在學術界幾無所見。時至今日，在理論上有深入 探討及論述者，還是顏崑陽教授當年所撰之論文與專著。本論文試圖 以顏崑陽教授之立論為探討商榷對象，檢討「情志批評」立名是否合 理？析述「情志」在中國古典文論中的意義及文論家所關心的層面。
而由於「情志批評」乃是以「以意逆志」、「知人論世」為實際操作方法，故本文亦就此方法進行溯源探究，析述其理論架構，探討孟子所提出的說詩之法，並說明漢朝王逸、鄭玄等諸位箋釋家，其所用之箋釋方法乃源自孟子之確證。並闡述此批評法自明、清以來被誤解、誤用之跡。其中再就顏崑陽教授析讀之內容，析論其對明、清箋釋家所論是否如諸家文中之旨？
通過以上的考察，可知由於明、清箋釋家失落了「人情不遠」這個層面，所以孟子的說詩法，被他們轉成用歷史研究的成果來解詩，因此便產生了局限。這些局限，讀者在操作此方法時應該有所體認，才能更精確地達到說詩、解詩的目的。但也因此，依附在「以意逆志」、「知人論世」法中的所謂「情志批評」，似乎愈走愈窄了。而顏崑陽教授於《李商隱詩箋釋方法論》中批判此法，並加以調整，加上一些原則性之限制。其間有值得商榷者焉。本文爰就顏崑陽教授所論，考此法之所由來，析其理論內涵之衍變，以及落實到實際批評活動，權以商榷之。

Emotion-Intention Criticism has been used in the academic field as a term in Chinese Literary Criticism for more than twenty-five years. The term was first derived from Professor Kun-Yang Yen, and was then separately applied as the fundamental method to approach Chinese Literary Studies, significantly influencing the concept, cognition, and interpretation of Chinese literature. This paper inspects the validity of the name “Qing Zhi”, while discussing its definition and categorization in Chinese Literary.
The practice of Emotion-Intention Criticism is to “understanding authors’ aspirations through universal idea” and “understanding the authors by investigating the period in which they lived”. This article analyzes the meaning and form demonstrated in Mencius. Moreover, the content and analysis proves that the methods and the concepts used by interpreters in the Han Dynasty. Lastly, with regards to Yen’s statement about Mencius’s interpreting methods on poetry, the article clarifies the misunderstanding and misuse of Emotion- Intention Criticism.
Through additional research and analysis, it becomes apparent that the interpreters in the Ming and Qing Dynasties had not paid due attention to “human feelings are similar”. Mencius’s methods on interpreting poetry had been transformed into a historical research method after several dynasties. Therefor, limitations on its application have become apparent. Interpreters should be aware of these limitations in order to interpret works more precisely. Yen has criticized and revised Mencius’s methods in his work; he also proposes restrictions to Emotion-Intention Criticism to be applied as a set of rules.