User:ChihiroAyasato/The Happiness of Fish Debate (Hao Liang Zhi Bian)

The Happiness of Fish Debate (Chinese: yú lè zhī biàn 鱼乐之辩), also known as Hao Liang Zhi Bian (Chinese: háo liáng zhī biàn 濠梁之辩), refers to a debate between two philosophers, Zhuangzi and Hui Shi, during the Warring States period of China. This debate was centred around whether the minnow in the river were happy and how the philosophers knew this.

Background
Hui Shi was a representative figure of the School of Names and was renowned alongside Confucius, Laozi, and Mozi at the time.

Zhuangzi, on the other hand, was a person from the state of Song during the Warring States period and a representative figure of the Daoist school. Zhuangzi and Hui Shi were both friends and opponents in debate. The debate between Zhuangzi and Hui Shi is mentioned several times in the book Zhuangzi, particularly in Chapter 17 "Autumn Floods". The Hao River mentioned in the debate is a river in present-day Fengyang, Anhui.

Translated text
"Chuang Tzŭ and Hui Tzŭ had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, 'See how the minnows are darting about! That is the pleasure of fishes.'

'You not being a fish yourself,' said Hui Tzŭ, 'how can you possibly know in what consists the pleasure of fishes?'

'And you not being I,' retorted Chuang Tzŭ, 'how can you know that I do not know?'

'If I, not being you, cannot know what you know,' urged Hui Tzŭ, 'it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know in what consists the pleasure of fishes.'

'Let us go back,' said Chuang Tzŭ, 'to your original question. You asked me how I knew in what consists the pleasure of fishes. Your very question shows that you knew I knew. For you asked me how I knew. I knew it from my own feelings on this bridge. From my own feelings above the bridge I infer those of the fishes below.'"

Analysis
As the Happiness of Fish Debate comes from the book Zhuangzi, it cannot be confirmed whether the story was fabricated by Zhuangzi to expound his views. This is especially considering that Hui Shi's existing works can only be found in Chapter 33 "The Empire" of the Zhuangzi with the rest of his original works lost to history. As such, our understanding of Hui Shi's philosophy is limited to his Ten Theses.

Some interpretations suggest that in the debate, Hui Shi represents rational thinking. He argues that humans cannot perceive whether fish are happy and would not project their own happiness onto external things. In contrast, Zhuangzi takes his own understanding of an external thing's state to be their true state. He projects his own happiness onto the fish, believing them to also be happy.

Hui Shi contends that different cognitive subjects (humans, fish, or other species) cannot truly understand each other's subjective minds (e.g., knowing what others know). However, Zhuangzi points out that this view is a paradox, as the inability to understand the knowledge of other subjects cannot be asserted without knowing their knowledge. When Hui Shi responds to Zhuangzi's challenge, he does not realise the inherent contradiction, leading Zhuangzi to play a language game and engage in linguistic ambiguity. The first half of the original text involves a fascinating philosophical dialogue on epistemology, relativism, and paradox, while the second half reflects Zhuangzi's intentional confusion and linguistic playfulness.

Understanding
The entire debate can be understood through the following process:


 * Zhuangzi's view: Humans can perceive the happiness of fish.
 * Hui Shi's view: Humans cannot perceive the happiness of fish.

Debate Rounds In this debate, the apparent advantage of Zhuangzi comes from the ambiguity in the phrase "You not being a fish, how can you know in what consists the pleasure of fishes?" It can be understood as questioning both Zhuangzi's ability to know the happiness of a fish and the method by which Zhuangzi knows the happiness of a fish. Zhuangzi originally interpreted it as questioning his ability, and Hui Shi's subsequent response indicated agreement with Zhuangzi's original viewpoint. The clever wordplay and ambiguity allows Zhuangzi to employ linguistic games to refute Hui Shi's arguments, turning the debate into a philosophical discussion. The debate originally arose from Hui Shi's ambiguous statement, but he did not contradict himself. Since both sides initially agreed on the perspective that "Hui Shi does not know a fish's happiness," it was a suitable understanding in that context. However, Zhuangzi later played a language game (returning to the Dao, eliminating the dualism of subject and object) to counter Hui Shi's arguments, using linguistic ambiguity to refute him.

The Commentary on the Appended Statements of the Book of Changes (Yijing) says: "The unity of one Yin and one Yang is called the Dao (the principle that when there is a visible part of something, there is an invisible part, and that is the complete truth)." From this perspective: when Hui Shi posed the question "How do you know?" he was already taking the standpoint of "You already know," otherwise, there would be no need for Hui Shi to ask in the first place. Conversely, if Hui Shi truly didn't know what Zhuangzi knew, then Hui Shi would simply have ignored Zhuangzi's words and not raised the question "If you are not a fish, how do you know the happiness of a fish?"

To illustrate with an example: If Person A (Hui Shi) asks Person B (Zhuangzi): "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" by posing this question, Person A is already expressing a certain viewpoint. In this case, no matter how Person B answers, it could be considered incorrect, and the conversation might go in circles at the point of repetition. Therefore, Person B straightforwardly brings the question back to the beginning, asking Person A: "Didn't you already know the answer upon asking me the question?"

Origin

 * Web page


 * 也論莊子與惠施的魚樂之辯 （页面存档备份，存于）