本論文對民生史觀與唯物史觀作對比研究，以期全盤重建這兩種史觀。透過對比研究法的運用、周邊還原（政治還原與系絡還原）的程序、詮釋學方法，本論文構築一個共同的時空對比架構（歷史進化論、社會發展論、人本主義）、彰顯民生史觀與唯物史觀的結構對比及兩種史觀之間的動態對比，提出新的理解與批評，並進而以這兩種史觀為領會對比韻律的理論工具，為對比哲學奉獻心力。

第二章探討民生史觀與唯物史觀的歷史進化論。孫中山為宇宙進化畫分明確的階段，有強烈的目的論傾向，馬克思則反對用目的論解釋宇宙進化。他們都認為生物進化與社會進化有明顯的區別。孫中山的歷史分期論，包括自然進化與歷史進化之分、三民進化論與民權進化論、知行進化論。馬克思第一階段的歷史分期論基於歐洲中心主義，將歐洲的歷史分期分成原始、古代、封建、近代資產生產方式等階段，後來注意到非歐世界的歷史進化及資本主義之前的經濟形構。孫中山與馬克思的歷史路線論分別是中心線東西對照論與中心線擴散論。前者出於中國中心主義，後者則基於歐洲中心主義。

第三章討論民生史觀的社會發展論。首先歸納出國內論者詮釋民生史觀的五條公式。繼而重建民生史觀的理論體系，以人民的生活為總綱，以社會的生存與國民的生計為途徑，以群眾的生命為最終目的。

第四章討論唯物史觀的社會發展論。首先羅列以往中西論者所詮釋的唯物史觀，如經濟決定論、技術決定論、多重決定論、功能解釋、有機論、公式套用論，並指出其優缺點。繼而建構馬克思唯物史觀的四種概念圖式：中心輻輳模式、中心三角模式、基礎－上層建築模式、中心直線模式。最後建構一個共同的對比模式。

第五章討論民生史觀與唯物史觀的人本主義。首先探討孫中山與馬克思的人性概念（人的定義與人的需要），對比其看法的異同。孫中山對人與自然、社會、歷史的看法的特徵是以主領客，馬克思則強調人與自然、社會、歷史的關係是辯證式的，顯露主客合一的思維。

第六章結論。第一節綜述各章研究成果。第二節略論本論文的缺點與局限，並以本文的對比架構（歷史進化論、社會發展論、人本主義）為準，展望未來的研究方向（時間分殊化、空間區隔化、生活相對化）。

Using the methodology of Dr. Vincent Shen's philosophy of contrast, this dissertation studies Dr. Yat-Sen Sun's and karl Marx's theories fo historical evolution, social development, as well as humanism. An abstract framework is constructed and the method of hermeneutics is used to demonstrate the dynamic contrasts between Dr. Yat-Sen Sun's and Marx's views pertaining to the evolution and development of humans' history, society as well as their assumptions of philosophical anthropology, together with the structural contrast of their theories.

In terms of historical evolution, the author finds out that, while Dr. Sun's view of history reveals the tendency of teleology, makes a sharp division between natural and humans' evolution, and conceptualizes humans' history from Chinese standpoint, Marx's early conception of history divides European history into a number of stages and part of this later attention is paid to non-European societies.

With regard to social development, the author generalizes scholars' explanations about Dr. Sun's social theory and reconstruct his theory of social development. The author also epitomizes scholars' interpretation of Marx's materialist conception of history and reconstructs four conceptual schemas of his theory of social development.

As for Dr. Sun's and Marx's humanism, the author concludes that, while Dr. Sun's humanism emphasizes the leading role of the subject, i.e., the human beings, over the objective structures, that is, the nature, the society, and the history, Marx's humanism underscores the dialectic relationships between the subject and the object structures.

Finally, not only the above-mentioned argument is summarized, but the future of developing a more complete framework for the construction of the philosophy of contrast if discussed.