田愚（艮齋，1841-1922）是韓國朝鮮朝末期的大儒，他屬於栗谷學派的思想家，根據栗谷的思想對當時的不同見解的學派，給出嚴格的批評，並提出性尊心卑及性師心弟說。而這些見解，都從他對朱子學的了解而引發，他對朱子思想的了解與詮釋與當代牟宗三對朱子學的衡定，大體相似，但他認為朱子學的思想是儒家的正宗、第一義，與牟先生所認為的朱子的思想型態是儒家的別子不同。由於艮齋的說法提出了明白的論據與分析，故他的說法可以視為對朱子學是否為儒學的正宗，給出了明白的辯解。通過艮齋與牟先生的詮釋之對比，可以對朱子學的特色有進一步的了解。

Jeonwu (Chǒn Kanjae，1841-1922) is a famous confucianist in late Joseon dynasty. He belongs to the school of Yul-Gok (栗谷). Kanjae strictly criticized other school’s philosophy according to Yul-Gok’s. Kanjae’s main doctrines are “the doctrine of Xing-Zun-Xin-Bei (性 尊心卑)” and “the doctrine of Xing-Shi-Xin-Di (性師心弟)”. These doctrines are inspired and derived from Zhu Zi’s moral philosophy. Kanjae’s interpretation of Zhu Zi’s moral philosophy is, in the main, similar to Mr. Mou Tsung-san’s. However, He regards Zhu Zi’s moral philosophy as the orthodox of Confucianism. Kanjae’s philosophical orientation of Zhu Zi is different from Mr. Mou’s. Mr. Mou’s analysis is: what Zhu Zi actually inherits is not the tradition of Confucius and Mencius, but another Confucianism of Cheng Yi. Based on this, Mr. Mou merely approves: the Confucianism that Zhu Zi enhances and glorifies is Cheng Yi’s philosophy (別子為宗). According to my investigation, Kanjae’s interpretation is on the solid basis of analysis and argument. Therefore, his interpretation can be seen as an important resource to clarify whether Zhu Zi’s moral philosophy is the orthodox of Confucianism or not. We have reason to believe that to compare Kanjae’s interpretation with Mr. Mou’s is helpful for us to acquire further understanding of Zhu Zi’s moral philosophy.