You cannot burn the candle at both ends. Mencius said, "Fish is what I want, and bear's paw is what I want." You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't have your cake and eat it. Life is what I want, and righteousness is what I want; You can't have both, and you have to sacrifice your life for righteousness. Life is what I want. I want it more than the living, so I don't want it. If there is nothing more in disgust than death, what can be done to avoid evil that can be used to escape evil? If people only want life, why not use those who can have life? If people are more terrible than the dead, why not treat the sick? If you are right, you are born unnecessary. If you are right, you can make trouble without doing anything. A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, you can live if you get it, but you will starve if you don't get it. But with disdain to drink and eat, hungry pedestrians are unwilling to accept it; Kick others' food with their feet, and beggars will not accept it.
A meal, a bowl of bean soup, if you get it, you will live, if you get it, you will die, and if you shout, people in the street will accept it; Begging for help is too much. I accepted it for 10,000 minutes without arguing about propriety. What does ten thousand minutes do to me? For the beauty of the palace, wives and concubines, poor people? Hometown is free from physical death, and today is the beauty of the palace; Die for yourself, not subject to it, and now be regarded as a wife; Is it right to refuse to accept it in order to die and help the poor? This is called the loss of humanity. "
You cannot burn the candle at both ends. Fish is my favorite, and bear's paw is also my favorite. If I can't have both, then I have to give up fish and choose bear's paw. Life is what I love, and righteousness is what I love. If you can't have both at the same time, then I'll have to give my life for justice. Life is what I love, but there are some things I love more than life, so I don't drag out an ignoble existence; I hate death, but there are some things that I hate more than death, so I don't avoid some disasters. If people love nothing more than life, then what can be used for survival can't be used? If people hate nothing more than death, then what can be used to avoid disaster is impossible? You can survive by some means, but some people refuse to use it; Some methods can avoid disaster, but some people refuse to adopt them. Therefore, they love something more precious than life (that is "righteousness"); What they hate is something more serious than death (that is "injustice"). Not only sages have this nature, everyone has it, but sages cannot lose it.
A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, can live if you eat it, or starve to death if you don't eat it. However, when passing hungry people gave it to others contemptuously and angrily, they refused to accept it. Kicking (or stepping on) others to eat, beggars are unwilling to accept it.
(But some people) accepted the generous salary of "Wanzhong" without knowing whether it was in line with etiquette. What good does such a generous salary do me? Is it because of the magnificent house, the service of wives and concubines, and the poor people I know? In the past (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) accept it for the splendor of the house; In the past (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) accept it to serve their first or second wives; In the past, (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) admire themselves for the poor people they know but accept. Can't this practice be stopped? This is called losing people's inherent sense of shame and shame.
You can't have your cake and eat it. Appreciation of Fish I Want, selected from Mencius Gaozi, discusses an important proposition of Mencius: righteousness is more important than life. When righteousness and life can't have both, we should give up our lives for righteousness.
Mencius thinks that he is ashamed of doing bad things, and others are tired of 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 familiar in people's lives: fish is what I want, and bear's paw is what I want. I'd rather give up fish than bear's paw if I can't get both at the same time; I cherish life and righteousness. In the case that I can't get both at the same time, I'd 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, and naturally the idea of "giving up life for righteousness" came into being. 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. I want more than the living, so I don't want it." Death is what I hate, too. It is more evil than the dead, so I have nothing to lose. "these arguments say: life is my treasure, but there are things more precious than life, and I can't do anything to drag out an ignoble existence; I hate death, but there is something I hate more than death (injustice), so sometimes I don't want to avoid disaster (death). This is a positive argument. Righteousness is more precious than life. When they can't have both, we should give up our lives for righteousness.
Secondly, "if people want nothing from life, why not make the best use of the living?" What makes people worse than the dead, so why not avoid the patients? "these arguments say: if there is nothing that people cherish more than life, then no means can be used to save lives! If there is nothing more disgusting than death, then what can be used to avoid disaster (death) cannot be done! The implication is: if this goes on, will people's behavior become omnipotent and despicable? This is a negative argument that righteousness is more important than life, and when you can't have both, you should give up your life for righteousness.
Third, "born with it, born without it, born with it, born without it." A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, you can live if you get it, but you will starve if you don't get it. Not only the sages have a heart, everyone has a heart, and the sages must not lose their ears. "These arguments say that you can save lives by such means (referring to improper means), but some people are unwilling to adopt them; In this way, disaster (death) can be avoided, but some people are unwilling to do so. Therefore, there are things that people value more than life (meaning righteousness) and things that people hate more than death (meaning injustice); This loyalty is not unique to sages, but everyone has it, but sages have not lost it. This is an objective fact that justice is more precious than life, and some people give up their lives for justice when they can't have it both ways. Through argumentation, establish the central argument put forward at the beginning of the article.
In order to make this truth more convincing and acceptable, Mencius went on to illustrate it with concrete examples. "One dish and one bean soup, if you get it, you will be born, and if you get it, you will die. Call it, and the people in the street will be blessed; It was a slap in the face, and people dismissed it. "Baskets are round bamboo baskets used for rice in ancient times, and beans are utensils for meat or other food in ancient times. Hu Er is shouting loudly, and Chu Er is kicking. 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 don't get it, you will starve to death. If you shout contemptuously for someone else to eat, even hungry passers-by will not accept it. If you give someone a kick, even beggars will disdain it. There is a story similar to this in the Book of Rites Tan Gong: "Qi is hungry, eating is the way, and eating is hunger. "If you are hungry, please make a collection, and the transaction will come rashly. Qian Ao ate on the left and drank on the right, saying,' Hey! Come and eat! Raise your eyes and look at it:' I don't eat my food, so so do I! "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, let alone ordinary people. This case vividly shows that people value righteousness more than life, and when they can't have both, they will give up their lives for righteousness.
In Mencius' view, "people are not sages, to err is human", and everyone has this kind of heavy meaning. When you can't have it both ways, you should sacrifice your life for justice. However, in real life, this is not always the case. Some people can refuse insulting alms in 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 don't argue about propriety and righteousness for ten thousand minutes. Some people accept the salary of 10 thousand bells, regardless of whether it is appropriate. What's in it for them? "For the beauty of the palace and the matter of wives and concubines, can the poor get me and you?" Do they know that they are grateful because of the gorgeous housing and the service of wives and concubines, which have given the benefits to poor friends? Gorgeous housing, the service of wives and concubines, and the gratitude of friends are all external things, which are insignificant compared with life. Those who "don't argue for ten thousand minutes" would rather starve to death than be insulted at the beginning, but they don't care about shame about these external things. What caused this? "This is called losing your heart." Mencius thought that this kind of person had the heart to sacrifice his life for righteousness, but later he lost it because of greed for profit. Mencius warned: "Yes or no?" This shameful thing of "accepting without arguing" should stop.
Mencius himself was a rather arrogant man, who refused to accommodate and curry favor with power. He said: "Richness and wealth can't be lewd, poverty and lowliness can't be moved, and powerful people can't be bent. This is called a gentleman. " Mencius (under Teng Wengong) was a visiting minister of Qi. Later, because of disagreement 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 center of the capital and give Mencius 10,000 grain as his disciple's living expenses. As a result, Mencius sternly refused. (Under the Ugly Sun) It can be seen that Mencius said in this article that "10,000 minutes without arguing, 10,000 minutes without adding to me", which shows Mencius' integrity and spirit.
From the literary point of view, prose is magnificent, emotional and lively, which fully embodies Mencius' upright personality and shows Mencius' eloquence. He likes to use rhetorical devices of parallelism, such as: "hometown is not subject to physical death, but now it is a beautiful palace;" 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 those in need. "Originally, this sentence could be finished in one sentence, that is,' My hometown died for my body, and I am doing it now for the beauty of the palace, for the service of wives and concubines, and for those who need me to know the poor and love the rich. "But he deliberately divided into three sentences, strengthened the momentum and feelings, and showed the speaker's righteous words. 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 abstract metaphors of life and justice, and "taking bear's paw for fish" as a clever metaphor of "giving up life for righteousness" is a very famous example. Secondly, this article also uses a lot of contrast techniques, such as comparing fish to bear's paw, comparing life to benevolence, comparing people who value righteousness over righteousness to "hometown behavior" and comparing "today's behavior" to "today's behavior", which makes the truth clearer, gives people a particularly profound impression and strengthens the persuasiveness of the article.