If it weren't for me, I know I don't know the happiness of fish? meaning

"You are not a fish, how can you know that fish are happy?" You are not me, how do you know that I don't know that fish are happy?

Zhuangzi and Keiko are swimming in Haoliang. Zhuangzi said: "How leisurely the fish in the river are in the river. This is the happiness of the fish." . "Keiko said," you are not a fish, where do you know that fish is happy? " ? " Zhuangzi said, "You are not me. How do you know that I don't know that fish are happy?" ? "

Keiko said: "I am not a son, I really don't know my son;" Zigu is not a fish, but I don't know the joy of fish! " Zhuangzi said, "Please follow its source. Confucius said,' You know a lot about fish.' If you know what I know, ask me. I know it very well. "

Zhuangzi and Keiko play together on Haoshui Bridge. Zhuangzi said: "How leisurely the silver carp swims in the river is the happiness of the fish." Keiko said, "You are not a fish. How do you know that fish is happy? "

Zhuangzi said, "You are not me. How do you know that I don't know that fish are happy? " Keiko said, "I'm not you, but I don't know you." You are not a fish in the first place, and you don't know the happiness of fish, which is completely certain. "

Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to the original topic. If you start asking me' where do you know the happiness of fish', it means that you know I know, so you ask me where I know. Now I tell you, I know it on Haoshui Bridge. "

Extended data

This article is about two experts in debate, swimming together on a bridge in Haoshui, looking down at the free-swimming fish, which aroused association and launched a debate about whether people can know the happiness of fish. Although its topic is small, its purpose is great.

Except for the first sentence, which is briefly explained in narrative way, the whole article adopts the form of dialogue and uses the method of children's spear to attack the shield to lead the debate to a deeper level. Zhuang Zhou affirmed that people can know the joy of fish, while Keiko denied that people can know the joy of fish. Not to mention who is right and who is wrong on both sides of the debate, their agile thinking and wise talk in the debate are amazing, giving people a pleasant and educational enjoyment.

Through the debate, we can find that Keiko is a person who is good at debate and analysis. Have a cognitive attitude towards things, focusing on the discussion of knowledge; Zhuangzi argued with wisdom and attached importance to appreciation. Have an appreciation attitude towards the outside world, impose subjective goodwill on external things, and produce empathy. If Keiko has the personality of a logician, then Zhuangzi has the style of an artist.

Baidu Encyclopedia-Zhuangzi and Keiko swim to Haoliang.