Fish I Want is a masterpiece of Mencius' in-depth discussion on human life and death based on his theory of good nature. Emphasize that "justice" is more important than "life", and advocate giving up life for justice. Below I have prepared the original text and translation comparison about fish I want, for your reference!
Fish I want is also the original:
Fish, what I want, bear's paw, and what I want, you can't have both, and those who give up fish and take bear's paw are also. Life is what I want, righteousness is what I want, and you can't have both. Those who give up life and take righteousness are also. If people do not enjoy more than life, then what can be used to find the means to survive, which can not be used? I also hate death, which is worse than the dead, so I can't avoid it. Use some means to be able to live, but some people do not want to use; Some way can escape the scourge, but some people refuse to use it. Make people worse than the dead, then why not avoid the patients! If you are born, you will be born without it; If you are right, you can avoid suffering and do something wrong. A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, get it can live, do not get it will starve. But with disdain to drink to eat, the hungry pedestrians are unwilling to accept; To kick others to eat with their feet, the beggars would not accept them.
The senior official accepted it without distinguishing whether it was propriety or propriety. Call for it, and the people on the street will be blessed; It's too much to beg for help.
Ten thousand minutes will be accepted without distinguishing propriety and righteousness, so what does ten thousand minutes do to me? For the beauty of the palace, the service of wives and concubines, I won't help those who know the poor? It is the beauty of the palace to die for one's body and not be subjected to it; To die for one's body is not subject to it, and now it is regarded as a wife and concubine; I want to die for my life, but now I want to do it for the poor and needy: yes or no? This is called the loss of human nature.
Fish is what I want.
Fish is my favorite, and bear's paw is also my favorite. If I can't get both at the same time, then I have to give up fish and choose bear's paw. Life is what I love, and righteousness is what I love. If these two things can't be both at the same time, then I have to sacrifice my life and choose righteousness. Life is what I love, but there are things I love more than life, so I don't drag out an ignoble existence; I hate death, but there are things I hate more than death, so I don't avoid some disasters. If people love nothing more than life, then what can be used to survive can't be used? If people hate nothing more than death, then what can be done to avoid disaster? You can survive by some means, but some people refuse to use it; A certain method can avoid disaster, but some people refuse to adopt it. Thus, what they love is something more precious than life (that is "righteousness"); What they hate is something more serious than death (that is "injustice"). Not only the sage has this nature, but everyone has it, but the sage can not lose it.
A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, you can live if you eat it, or you will starve to death if you don't eat it. However, the hungry people who passed by refused to accept it when they gave it to others contemptuously and angrily. Kicking (or stepping on) others to eat, beggars are not willing to accept it.
(But some people) saw the generous salary of "Wan Zhong" but accepted it without knowing whether it was in line with etiquette or not. In this way, what good is a generous salary for me? Are you grateful to me for the splendor of my house, the service of my wife and my familiar poor people? Previously (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) accept it for the sake of the splendor of the house; Previously (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) accept it for the service of their first and second wives; Previously (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) appreciate themselves for the poor people they know well but accept it. Can't this practice stop it? This is called losing people's inherent sense of shame and shame.
Fish what I want is also explained in the original text:
Taking "fish" and "bear's paw" as metaphors, this paper shows that we will face many important choices on the road of life, and we should attach importance to "righteousness". In order to maintain it, we should not hesitate to "sacrifice our lives for righteousness".
The article consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph can be divided into three layers.
On the first level (from "fish, what I want, bear's paw, what I want" to "those who give up their lives for righteousness"), the author first puts forward his own arguments. The first sentence is a metaphor of fish and bear's paw, and the conclusion is that "he who gives up fish and takes bear's paw is also"; The second sentence is based on the metaphor of the first sentence, which leads to the argument that "those who sacrifice their lives for righteousness are also".
The second level (from "I want what I want when I am born" to "I want more than the living, and I hate more than the dead") is the further analysis and demonstration of this thesis, which is the focus of the full text.
Firstly, the author expounds his own point of view from the front: although life is my favorite, because what I like is more important than life, I don't do anything to drag out an ignoble existence; Although death is what I hate, because I hate something more than death, even if there is a disaster that leads to death, I will not avoid it. "More than the living" here means "righteousness"; "More than the dead" is "injustice". Therefore, in order to "righteousness", you can "give up your life"; Even if you die, you won't do anything "unjust".
Then, the author states his views from the opposite side. If what people love is not more important than life, then what can't be used to save life? If people hate nothing more than death, then what can't be used to avoid the evil that leads to death? What an intolerable thing it is for a person who wants more than life and hates more than death!
On the third level ("People who are not unique have hearts, and everyone has them, and sages can not lose their ears"), the author concludes that in fact, everyone has a heart for goodness, and the word "righteousness" is a kind of "righteousness" that fills the gap between heaven and earth, and it is everywhere, but when faced with the test of life and death, most people don't want to do it, but can't do it.
Mencius said: "Everyone has compassion; Everyone has the heart of shame and evil; Everyone has the heart of resignation; Everyone has a heart of right and wrong. Compassion, benevolence; Shame and evil heart, righteousness also; Respect, courtesy; The heart of right and wrong is also wise. Benevolence, benevolence, courtesy and wisdom are not from the outside (shuò, loss), but I am also inherent. " Therefore, it is said, "If you ask, you will get it, but if you give up, you will lose it." This is nothing more than saying that the four virtues of "benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom" are innate and everyone has them. Mencius said that "everyone can think of Yao and Shun", which is derived from this point of view. The difference between a sage and a fool is that the sage "seeks", so he "gets", so he "can not lose his ear" and the fool "gives it up", so he "loses" and no longer has the virtue of "benevolence, righteousness, courtesy and wisdom".
In the second paragraph, the author uses the method of example argumentation. Taking "one food, one bean soup" as an example, the author tells us that this seemingly insignificant "one food, one bean soup" can also test a person's moral character when it is related to life and death. "Huer" and "Chuer" and "Walkers" are disdainful of it. This is the "shame heart" and the insistence on "righteousness". It is "shame" to eat "food that comes from nowhere", which is the "concept" of "righteousness". It can be seen that "righteousness" actually exists in people's ideas.
Another example shows that "Wan Zhong" should not be affected by it. Why do you accept it? For "the beauty of the palace, the service of wives and concubines, the poor and needy get me"? In the past, I would rather die than accept the "one meal, one bean soup" of "what I get is life, and what I get is death". Can I accept "ten thousand minutes" today for these reasons? Although "a mouthful of food, a bean soup" is much less than "ten thousand minutes", it seems more important to "die if you are blessed". Here, the author also uses the method of comparative argument to compare "one food, one bean soup" with "ten thousand bells" According to the amount of wealth, there are naturally many "ten thousand bells". However, "ten thousand minutes" determines "the beauty of the palace, the service of wives and concubines, and those who know the poor get me", while "a meal and a bean soup" determines life, which is naturally more important than "ten thousand minutes". However, whether it is "10,000 minutes" or "one meal, one bean soup" is secondary to the word "righteousness", so the use of two examples proves the argument of "giving up one's life for righteousness" again from both positive and negative aspects.
A sentence at the end sums up this paragraph and takes care of the beginning: "This is called losing its true heart." This "original heart" is the "heart of shame and evil" that is "righteousness" and the nature of "goodness".
Word annotation
(1) also: also.
(2) desire: love.
(3) Have both: get both things.
(4) give up: give up.
(5) take: select.
(6) even better than.
(7) Yu: than.
(8) therefore: therefore, therefore.
(9) Get it: Get it if you can, which means "drag out an ignoble existence".
(10) Evil: disgust.
(1 1) Suffering: disaster.
(12) Bi: "avoid" and avoid.
(13) If: If, if.
(14) Zhi: Used between subject and predicate, which cancels the independence of the sentence, has no real meaning and does not translate.
(15) Mo: No.
(16) then: then.
(17) everything: everything.
(18) To live: to save life.
(19) Why not use it? What means are not available? Use, adopt.
(20) monarch: one is to "avoid". Do for.
(2 1) and: but.
(22) Yes, therefore.
(23) Non-independence: not only, not only non-independence: not only.
(24) Sage: a person with talent and virtue.
(25) Yes: here, like this.
(26) Heart: Thought
(27) Don't lose: Don't lose. Bereavement: loss.
(28) Qu: an ancient round bamboo utensil for holding food.
(29) Bean: An ancient wooden utensil for holding food.
(30) then: just.
(3 1) F: No.
(32) get: get.
(33) Hull: Huhe (contemptuously, disrespectful to people).
(34) Huer and with it: Hue to him (eat and drink). Er, modal particle. The Book of Rites Tan Gong records that there was a serious famine in Qi one year. Qian ao was giving porridge by the roadside when a hungry man came with his face covered with sleeves. Qian ao shouted for him to eat porridge. He said, "I am in this situation because I don't eat the food given by contempt!"
Pedestrians: (hungry) passers-by.
(36) kick: kick with your feet.
(37) and: surface modification.
(38) Disdain: Refuse to accept because of contempt.
(39) Wan Zhong: This refers to the high position and great wealth. Clock, an ancient measuring device, has six hooves and four buckets for one clock.
(40) Debate, distinguishing with "bian"; He Jia: What are the benefits? What prepositional structure, postposition. [
(4 1) Palace: residence.
(42) serve: serve.
(43) The needy: the poor.
(44) Get me: Be grateful to me. De: Pass "De" and be grateful.
(45) and: Tong "Yi", modal particle.
(46) township, through "to", originally, once upon a time.
(47) has: stopped.
(48) nature: nature. Here refers to people's shame and evil heart.
Appreciation of literature
"I want what I want" is selected from Mencius Gaozi, which discusses an important proposition of Mencius: righteousness is more important than life, and when righteousness and life cannot be balanced, we should give up life for righteousness.
Mencius said: "The heart of shame and evil is also righteous." ("Mencius Gaozi Shang") and said: "Righteousness, road also. ..... Only a gentleman can follow the right path. " (Under Zhang Wan) Mencius thinks that he is ashamed of doing bad things, and others are disgusted with doing bad things. This is righteousness; Righteousness is the right path that a moral gentleman must follow.
Mencius first made an analogy with specific things that people are familiar with in their lives: fish is what I want, and bear's paw is what I want. In the case that both cannot be obtained at the same time, I would rather give up fish and want bear's paw; Life is what I cherish, and righteousness is what I cherish. In the case that I can't get both at the same time, I would rather give up my life and get the essence. Mencius compared life to a fish and righteousness to a bear's paw, thinking that righteousness is more precious than life, just as bear's paw is more precious than fish, which naturally leads to the idea of "giving up life for righteousness". This proposition is the central argument of the whole article.
Mencius demonstrated the significance of sacrificing one's life for righteousness from three aspects. First, "life is what I want, and what I want is more than the living, so I don't want it." Death is also what I hate, and it is more evil than the dead, so I have nothing to lose. " These arguments say: life is what I cherish, but there is something I cherish more than life (meaning justice), so I can't do anything to drag out an ignoble existence; I hate death, but there is something I hate more than death (referring to injustice), so sometimes I don't want to avoid the disaster (death). This is a positive argument that righteousness is more precious than life, and when they can't have both, we should give up life for righteousness. Secondly, "if people want nothing more than life, why not use the living if they can?" If people are more evil than the dead, why not treat the sick? " These arguments say: if there is nothing that people cherish more than life, then what means can be used to save life can't be used! If there is nothing more disgusting than death, then what can be used to avoid disaster (death) can't be done! The implication is: if this goes on, people's behavior will not become omnipotent and despicable? This is a negative argument that righteousness is more precious than life, and when they can't have both, we should give up life for righteousness. Third, "if you are born, you will be born without it, and if you are, you can make trouble without it." A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, get it can live, do not get it will starve. Those who are not only sages have hearts, everyone has them, and sages can not lose their ears. " These arguments say that life can be saved by such means (referring to improper means), but some people are unwilling to adopt them; In this way (referring to improper methods), disaster (death) can be avoided, while some people are unwilling to do it. Therefore, there are things that people cherish more than life (meaning righteousness), and things that people hate more than death (meaning injustice); It is not only the sages who have this kind of loyalty, but everyone has it, but the sages have not lost it. This is to demonstrate from objective facts that righteousness is more precious than life, and some people give up their lives for righteousness when they can't have both. Through argumentation, the central argument put forward at the beginning of the article is established.
In order to make this truth more convincing and acceptable, Mencius went on to illustrate it with concrete examples. "A food, a bean soup, if you get it, you will be born, and if you get it, you will die. Call for it, and the people on the street will be blessed; It' s a slap in the face, and people are disdainful. " The basket is a round bamboo basket for holding rice in ancient times, and the bean is a vessel for holding meat or other foods in ancient times. Huer is yelling loudly and Chuer is kicking with his feet. These words say: as long as you get a small basket of rice and a small bowl of soup, you can save your life. If you can't get it, you will starve to death. If you shout contemptuously and ask others to eat, even hungry passers-by will not accept it. If you kick it for others, even beggars will disdain it. There is a story similar to this in the Book of Rites Tan Gong: "Qi is hungry, Qian ao eats for the road and eats for the hungry." If you are hungry, you will be invited to make a collection and trade will come rashly. Qian ao served food on the left and drank it on the right, saying,' Hey! Come and eat!' Raise your eyes and look at it:' I don't eat the food that I came from, so that I am also! "People hate it, so they would rather starve to death than accept insulting alms from others. Even unknown passers-by and poor beggars can do this, not to mention ordinary people. This case vividly shows that people value righteousness more than life, and when they can't have both, they will give up life for righteousness.
In Mencius' view, "everyone has a heart if he is not an independent sage", and everyone has this kind of heavy righteousness. Everyone should give up his life for righteousness when he can't have both. However, in real life, this is not always the case. Some people can refuse insulting alms from others in the case of poverty and crisis, but forget the benefits in a peaceful and peaceful environment. The third paragraph of the article analyzes this problem. Mencius pointed out that there are indeed people in the society who "do not argue with propriety and justice for ten thousand minutes". Some people accept the salary of ten thousand bells without asking whether it is proper or not. What good does it do them? "For the beauty of the palace, the service of wives and concubines, can those who know the poor get me and you?" Is it because of the gorgeous housing, the service of wives and concubines, and the benefits given to the poor friends they know that they are grateful to themselves? Gorgeous housing, the service of wives and concubines, and the gratitude of friends are all external things, which are insignificant compared with life. Those people who "don't argue with propriety and justice for ten thousand minutes" would rather starve to death than be insulted at first, but they don't care about shame for these external things. What caused this? "This is called losing their true heart." Mencius thought that such people originally had the heart of sacrificing their lives for justice, but later they lost it because of greed for profits. Mencius warned: "Yes or no?" This shameful thing of "accepting it without arguing" should stop.
Mencius himself was a rather arrogant person, who refused to accommodate and fawn on power. He said: "wealth can't be lewd, poverty can't be moved, and power can't be bent. This is called a gentleman." (Under Teng Wengong) Mencius used to be a guest minister in the State of Qi. Later, because he disagreed with the King of Qi, he decided to resign from Qi and go home. The King of Qi asked someone to keep Mencius, on condition that he was prepared to build a house in the central area of the capital for Mencius to live in, and gave Mencius 10,000 minutes of grain as the living expenses of his disciples. As a result, Mencius sternly refused. ("Under the Ugly Sun") It can be seen that Mencius said in this article that "10,000 minutes will be accepted without arguing propriety, and 10,000 minutes will not add to me", which shows Mencius' righteous character and spirit.
In this article, Mencius praised the spirit of giving up one's life for righteousness, and criticized that "ten thousand minutes will be accepted without arguing about propriety and righteousness", which had a good influence on later generations. In history, many people with lofty ideals regarded "giving up one's life for righteousness" as the code of conduct and "being rich and not being slutty" as the moral norm, which made contributions to the country and the nation. Wen Tianxiang, a national hero in the Southern Song Dynasty, said in the poem "Crossing the Zero Ding Yang": "No one has died in life since ancient times, so take care of the heart and shine on the history." Xia Minghan, a martyr of modern proletarian revolution, said in "Poetry of Righteousness": "It doesn't matter to behead, as long as the doctrine is true." This is all in line with the spirit of "giving up life for righteousness".
From the literary point of view, prose is full of momentum, strong feelings and lively, which fully embodies Mencius' righteous personality and shows Mencius' eloquence and eloquence. He likes to use rhetorical devices of parallelism, such as: "The hometown is not subject to physical death, but now it is the beauty of the palace;" The hometown is not subject to physical death, and now it is regarded as a wife and concubine; I don't want to die in my hometown, but now I want to do it for the poor and needy. " Originally, this sentence could be finished in one sentence, that is, "My hometown died for my body, but now I am doing it for the beauty of the palace, the service of my wives and concubines, and the people who know the poor and need me." However, he deliberately divided it into three sentences, which strengthened the momentum and feelings, showing the speaker's righteousness and righteousness. Secondly, in order to make the truth simple, vivid and interesting, Mencius likes to use metaphors. This article takes concrete fish and bear's paw as an abstract metaphor for life and justice, and "taking bear's paw instead of fish" as a clever metaphor for "giving up life for justice", which is a very famous example. Secondly, this article also uses a lot of contrast techniques, such as comparing fish with bear's paw, comparing life with righteousness, comparing people who value righteousness and neglect righteousness, and comparing "hometown behavior" with "today behavior", which makes the truth clearer, gives people a particularly deep impression and strengthens the persuasiveness of the article.
Famous comment
Zhu Xi: "This chapter says that shame and evil are inherent in people, or they may be born in times of danger and pressure, but they can't help but plan for the feast, so a gentleman can't ignore it in an instant." ("Four Books, Chapters and Sentences")
Brief introduction of the author
Mencius (about 372 BC-about 289 BC), whose name is Ke, the word Zi Yu (to be tested, the word Zi Che or Zi Ju). Han nationality, a native of Zouguo (now Zoucheng City, Shandong Province) in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, was a great thinker, educator, politician and writer in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty and the Warring States Period. One of the main representatives of Confucianism. Politically, he advocated that the law should precede the king and be benevolent; In theory, Confucius was praised and Yang Zhu and Mo Zhai were opposed. Known as the Yasheng by the later Buddha, his disciples recorded Mencius' words and deeds as a book "Mencius".
;