庄子 - 濠梁之辩Zhuangzi - The Debate on the Bridge over the Hao River
莊子與惠子游於濠梁之上。莊子曰：“鰷魚出遊從容，是魚樂也。”惠子曰：“子非魚，安知魚之樂？”莊子曰：“子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？”惠子曰：“我非子，固不知子矣，子固非魚也，子不知魚之樂，全矣。”莊子曰：“請循其本。子曰汝安知魚樂雲者，既已知吾知之而問我，我知之濠上也。”
子非鱼的故事我们都听过，但是可能并没有仔细了解过这个故事到底是讲什么，或者表达的含义，而浅显的以为是“你不是鱼，你凭什么以为自己知道鱼的快乐”，引申一下就是今天某个同学跟我说“你又不是我”然后把我拉黑的理解。背景是这个同学说是要润到国外，然后我告诉她出国不一定能解决你所有的问题，不一定比国内更开心，理由是她之前是一个“小粉红”，而且父母都是国家公职人员靠政策赚钱的，国内很多套房子。Anyways，脾气暴躁到没有给我继续辩论的机会，但是我觉得“你又不是我”这个的说法很有意思，如果继续说下去就是濠梁之辩，我就会用庄子的话，你又不是我，你怎么知道我不知道你的问题呢。展开来说，就是一个人怎么能知道另一个人的喜怒哀乐，怎么能超越自我了解外界呢？如果从逻辑学的角度来说，庄子的说法的确是主观推论没法严谨的得到鱼很快乐的结论的，然后用移情论的角度来思考，庄子最终赢得了辩论（当然也是这个故事是记录在《庄子》的），通过语言歧义来转换哲学观点，通过同理心和直觉来建立的认识论1。但是从庄子的角度来看，快乐更多是一种心性，不需要用客观证明有效性层层逼问，而是一种逍遥自在的”知“2
参考：
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling on the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, “The minnows swim about so freely and at ease; this is the happiness of fish.” Huizi said, “You are not a fish, so how do you know the happiness of fish?” Zhuangzi said, “You are not me, so how do you know I don’t know the happiness of fish?” Huizi said, “I am not you, so of course I don’t know you; and you are certainly not a fish, so your not knowing the happiness of fish is settled.” Zhuangzi said, “Let’s go back to where we started. When you said ‘how do you know the happiness of fish’, you already knew that I knew it, and that’s why you asked me. I knew it from here, above the Hao.”
We’ve all heard the “you are not a fish” story, but we may never have really looked into what the story is actually about or what it means, and just took it superficially as “you’re not a fish, so what makes you think you know the happiness of fish?” Extend that a bit and you get how a certain classmate understood it today when she told me “you’re not me” and then blocked me. The background: she said she wanted to “run” abroad, and I told her that going abroad won’t necessarily solve all your problems, and won’t necessarily make you happier than staying in China. My reasoning was that she used to be a “little pink” (a young nationalist), and her parents are both civil servants who made money off government policy and own lots of apartments in China. Anyways, she was so hot-tempered she didn’t give me a chance to keep debating, but I find “you’re not me” an interesting thing to say. If the argument had continued, it would have turned into the Hao River debate, and I’d have used Zhuangzi’s line: you’re not me, so how do you know I don’t understand your problem? More broadly, how can one person know another person’s joys and sorrows, and how can one transcend the self to understand the outside world? From the standpoint of logic, Zhuangzi’s argument is indeed subjective inference and can’t rigorously reach the conclusion that the fish are happy. But thinking about it from the angle of empathy theory, Zhuangzi ultimately won the debate (of course, the story is also recorded in the Zhuangzi), by using linguistic ambiguity to shift philosophical positions, an epistemology built on empathy and intuition1. But from Zhuangzi’s point of view, happiness is more a state of the heart; it doesn’t need to be interrogated step by step for objective proof of validity. It is instead a free and unfettered kind of “knowing”2
References: