關於理學的最高範疇「太極」和「理」，一般認為利瑪竇的看法是秉持官方神學的本位立場，將其降格為依賴之類的事物的屬性，其主要的努力在於將天主教至高神釋為古經中的上帝。而龍華民等的做法則不同，將「太極」和「理」釋為「原始物質」，認為儒家是無神論。而萊布尼茲則認為中國哲學的「理」即是至高神，甚至更往前走了一步，認為中國哲學的「理」即是那本體的、萬物之可能性的、第一或終極理由、眾善的本源。三方對儒家思想的不同理解與因應揭示出明末上帝存在的認識論之爭，並進而延展出儒耶對話的一種可能進路。從「泰西」到「西泰」，說明了作為泰西文化代表的傳教士拓展儒耶對話的努力，與佛、道兩教的對立。這帶來了中國禮儀之爭，更開啟了東西方兩大文化互相體認與整體評判的大門。

As for the highest categories of Neo-Confucianism, Tai Chi and Li, it is generally believed that Matteo Ricci’s view was to uphold the standard position of Catholic official theology and reduced them to the attributes of things that need to depend on things. His main effort was to interpret Catholic supreme God as Shang-ti in ancient Chinese scriptures. In contrast, Niccolo Longobardi and other Jesuits who opposed Matteo Ricci’s practice interpreted Tai Chi and Li as “primitive material”, and they regarded Confucianism as atheism, which directly obscured the possible channels of communication between Confucianism and Catholicism. Leibniz, on the other hand, thought that Li of Chinese philosophy itself was the Supreme God, and even went a step further. He thought that Li of Chinese philosophy is the noumenon, the possibility of all things, the first or ultimate reason, and the origin of all goodness. The different understandings and responses of the three parties to Confucianism revealed the epistemological controversy on the existence of God in Late-Ming China, and further extended a possible approach to the dialogue between Confucianism and Catholicism. From Tai-xi to Xi-tai, only the order of the two words seems to have changed, but the meanings behind them are quite different. This showed that the missionaries, as the representatives of western culture, recognized Confucianism and opposed Buddhism and Taoism. This has brought about Chinese Rites Controversy, and opened the door of mutual recognition and overall evaluation of the two cultures of the East and the West.