Analysis of a Conversation between Two Chinese Characters: Chuang Tzu and Hui Shi - Essay Example

Chinese Philosophy Text The discussion briefly analyzes a conversation between two Chinese characters. They conversed beside the majestic River Hao about the fishes. The discussion below sheds some light on the probable philosophical explanations of the two characters’ intentions, logic and rationale of thought. The writing talks about some abstract concepts that could appropriately analyze the situation. Chuang Tzu, one of the characters, described how the fishes enjoy darting in the River Hao, to which his fellow, Hui Shi questioned his position and stature for describing what was beyond his (Chuang Tzu) capability. The ultimate motive of Chuang Tzu was, probably, to appreciate the beauty of River Hao. Text 1. Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were strolling along the bridge of the Hao River when Chuang Tzu said, “See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That’s what fish really enjoy!” Hui Shi said, “You are not a fish---how do you know what fish enjoy!” Chuang Tzu said, “You’re not I, so how do you know that I do not know what the fish enjoy.” Hui Shi said, “I am not you, so I certainly don’t know what you know. On the other hand, you are certainly not a fish—so that still proves you don’t know what fish enjoys.” Chuang Tzu said, “Let go back to your original question, please. You ask me how I know what fish enjoys. So you already knew I knew it when you ask the question. I know it by standing upon the River Hao.” Analysis: In just a few statements, these two characters have sparked off a delightful, thought-provoking, and philosophical discussion, indeed. The fundamentals of the discussion revolve around the individuality and uniqueness of each body in this universe. Philosophy has given way to the notion that nobody knows what the other body is in actuality. In the spectrum of philosophical thought, reality is, in fact, a fallacy and with regards to the philosophical sphere of thinking, it is a matter of fact that Hui Shi may never know what Chuang Tzu is. What may seem to the human eye could be the result of one’s own biased expectations of thought and perceptions. In short, if Hui Shi expects Chuang Tzu to be human, Chuang Tzu will seem human to Hui Shi. However, it is Chuang Tzu who knows if he, himself, is human or not. In the case that Chuang Tzu is human, then Hui Shi has objected correctly against the claim of knowing what fishes enjoy. Chuang Tzu can never perceive what it is like to be a foreign body. Even so, Chuang Tzu should not even try to perceive because his current, fixed state of humanness restricts him to feel like fish. Hence, either the fishes are enjoying or not, can only be known by the fish themselves, and not Chuang Tzu. Considering possibilities in the realms of philosophy, Chuang Tzu could very well be a fish once who is telling first-hand experience of enjoying life in River Hao; or, Chuang Tzu could be merely pondering about how fishes enjoy in the river. Both these possibilities do not influence the fact that Chuang Tzu is currently a human who looks just like Hui Shi. Hence, if one is a fish in actuality, the other must be too. And if both know that they are not fish, then it is enough to suggest that Chuang Tzu does not know what fishes enjoy. Chuang Tzu claims in the end that the reason why Hui Shi asked how he knows what fish enjoy is because Hui Shi had a slight supposition that Chuang Tzu might actually know what fish enjoy. This could very well be argued just by observing the nature of the conversation. Chuang Tzu’s assertive claim in the beginning created a sense of uncertainty for Hui Shi. It is important to see, now, that Hui Shi’s response then had elements of, both, rhetorical and questioning nature. On one hand, he subtly asked for reconfirmation of Chuang Tzu’s current state of humanness and on the other hand, Hui Shi refused to agree to Chuang Tzu’s claim of knowing what fish enjoy. This precise response was, in a way, interpreted by Chuang Tzu to his own advantage. He failed to acknowledge that Hui Shi had a tone of refusal in his question too, and so Hui Shi did not already knew that Chuang Tzu knew what fishes enjoy. In the end, Chuang Tzu stated that he knows exactly how and what fishes enjoy in the river because he was “…standing upon the River Hao”. By saying this, he shifted the argument into his favor by associating his claim with the basic beauty of nature. Nature, through his stance, is the common ground for humans and animal, for depicting the beauty and wonder of River Hao, in their own independent ways. The beauty of the river is both visible to Chuang Tzu and Hui Shi and also to the fishes. Hence, Chuang’s explanation for knowing how he knows what fish enjoy becomes plausible. Also, by doing this Chuang Tzu appropriately appreciates what they both see around themselves i.e. River Hao. In China, River Hao is believed to be a masterpiece of nature’s beauty and the locals hold its image in high pride. They perceive the river important to their tradition and they consider their vast history of culture connected with the river. Henceforth, the association of the river with Chuang Tzu’s reasoning is more than enough for his fellow, Hui Shi who understands that it is most likely that the fishes enjoy their life in the grand River Hao and that Chuang Tzu cannot be wrong about the river’s beauty. To Hui Shi, the essence of Chuang Tzu’s stance lies in the intention of praising the nature of the river and not in the actual initial claim. The symbolic connotation can also be considered. Fish character in Chinese culture symbolizes abundance of happiness and success. In this regard, this dialogue could be about self-actualization and happiness in life. When Chuang Tzu proclaims the fishes’ happiness, he symbolically meant that happiness is a state to be acquired not waited for, and it can be witnessed. The symbolism for the vast depth and uncertainly of the universe and life is the river, and so in that ‘universe’, Chuang Tzu saw happiness to which Hui Shi questioned him. Hui Shi stated that Chuang Tzu cannot testify for happiness when he is not happy himself. Chuang Tzu responded by saying that he can be happy from within which might not be obvious on the outside. Furthermore, Chuang Tzu ended the dialogue by symbolically stating that Hui Shi’s question meant that he already acknowledged that happiness exists and it is certainly achievable. In the context, the two are talking about the secret to happiness and at the end Chuang Tzu claims that happiness is universal and it is a state that exists within us; it only has to be consciously felt by the heart and mind. However, the author fails to mention the complexity of the success. For each individual, success has a different definition and so it might not be a uniform and universal state of existence. According to Chinese theology, the Qi (Chi) energy is felt by all living things. It is this very energy that is a source of positivity among them. That energy is absorbed through various organs in the body and the energy is apparently able to impart “happiness” to the other receptors in the same or the different species. In other words it takes only an observant eye and the very essence of ‘humanity” to explore the fascination in Mother Nature and the ability to understand and appreciate them. Chuang Tzu felt the same positive energy from the fishes and, thus, subconsciously realized that the fishes were happy. Likewise, negative energy works some the way. All this work of energies comes under the ‘Laws of Attraction’, whereby positive and negative energies travel from body to body in a never-ending chain. Again, it’s worthwhile to note here that, Chuang Tzu is not one of the fishes; however, the universal positive vibes from the fishes are absorbed by Chuang Tzu in the truest form. Thus, when Chuang Tzu spoke about the fishes enjoying the water, he was speaking for the fishes, and not for himself. In the most absolute sense, this conversation merely deals with two Chinese men finding themselves exchanging views on the most delicate and most primitive topics in the field of philosophy i.e. questions about perceptions, happiness and concept of reality. It is worth appreciation, indeed, how such an in-depth philosophical dialogue can be made about such abstract concepts as discussed above. Read More