Talking about the feeling after reading from the angle of never joking.

Trustworthiness is a basic principle that a man must adhere to from ancient times to the present. In ancient China, for kings, there was a saying that "you don't joke", and for the people, there was a code of "holding a pillar when you die". There is no need to repeat the story of Wei Sheng, but a story behind You Are Not Joking cannot be ignored.

According to official records, Zhou Chengwang and his younger brother Yu Shu played games, and conveniently picked a plane tree leaf for his younger brother, saying that this is Yugui, and I made you a vassal. Uncle Yu was glad to tell the Duke of Zhou about it, and the Duke of Zhou immediately went to see it to verify the authenticity of the seal. Wang Cheng said I was just playing with him. Duke Zhou said that once the emperor's words were spoken, historians would write them down, and the court would discuss them and spread them all over the country. How can the Marquis be a joke? Therefore, we had to seal it in Jin.

This is the earliest origin of the old saying "You are joking", which is intended to teach those emperors to keep their word, or they will lose their prestige. For the supreme authority, speaking carefully is not only a matter of majesty, but also a matter of social cost. Unless the time is ripe and imperative, all government decrees involving the overall level should be carefully promulgated. Changing order will inevitably lead to the transformation of social operation mechanism and track and the adjustment of people's behavior and psychology, and the process of transformation and adjustment needs to pay a certain social cost.

In the story of "Emperor of East Ye Feng" mentioned above, Duke Zhou's persuasion and his promise to become a king all point to a foothold: in order to safeguard the prestige of the Emperor of Heaven, even a joke or a mistake should be carried out as it is. There is no meaning that they are responsible for social costs, which is the most important thing. On balance, which is more important, the prestige of the son of heaven or social stability? Here, we might as well think about it carefully. That uncle Yu was just a child at that time, and it's hard to say whether he can make progress in the future. If he is an illegitimate child who can't afford to be raised, wouldn't it be a shame for the Duke of Zhou to be king and honor his joke of sealing Hou? To be a king, if you just perform a joke for your own prestige, is it right or wrong, virtuous or immoral? By extension, if a person's words are inappropriate or even absurd, is it necessary to abide by the moral standard of "faith"? Or, when "faith" and "righteousness" conflict, how should you adapt? Can you go back on your word?

Faith is also an important standard of Confucian traditional ethics. The Analects of Confucius says, "A man without faith does not know what he can do". What Confucius means by this sentence is, what if people don't keep their promises? He not only values the social significance of "faith", but also is a person who stresses honesty. But in the Records of Historical Records, Confucius once broke his word.

It happened on the way to defend the country for the last time, and was stopped by the noble uncle who occupied Dipu and rebelled against Wei Jun. One of his disciples, Ruligang Gong, followed Confucius in his five carriages. He was kind and brave, and when he saw that his master was tired of being robbed, he was very angry, so he fought fiercely with the Pu people. When they met such a man who was not afraid of death, Pu people were a little scared, so they said to Confucius: If you swear not to go to Dewey, you will be released. After Confucius agreed to each other's terms, Pu people let Confucius and his party go from the East Gate. Later, Confucius not only did not change his itinerary, but also went to the imperial city to persuade Wei Linggong to send troops to Vapp. Zi Gong was puzzled when he saw the teacher who had always kept his word. He asked Confucius: Can the Covenant be broken? Confucius said that the gods would not recognize contracts signed under duress.

You Ruo, one of the twelve philosophers of Confucius, can usually make an original interpretation of Confucius' thoughts. He once said, "Faithfulness is near, but words are heavy". It means faithfulness, and the promise is feasible. Perhaps only in this way can Confucius explain the belief problems involved in answering Zi Gong's question. Mencius on Li Lou pointed out: "Adults don't have to believe what they say, and what they do doesn't have to bear fruit." It means that a knowledgeable person doesn't have to keep his word, and his work doesn't have to have results, as long as it is moral. It is foolish to stick to "faith" without knowing how to be flexible.

In the history of China, the act of keeping promises is not always just, and the act of breaking promises is not always against justice. People who believe in the end are often criticized by later generations for sticking to form and not knowing change, and keeping small faith and violating great virtue. A perfidious person like Liu Bang will benefit the world if he breaks his word, and future generations will not be criticized. The ancient emperor, after listening to the advice of the admonisher and withdrawing his orders, was called the enlightened emperor. In fact, the most decisive and thorough practice of "what you say must be done, what you do must be fruitful" is not the king, nor the common people, but the chivalrous people who walk on the edge of the earth. Unlike all kinds of martial arts novels, the people and things recorded by Sima Qian are not fictional. In "Biography of the Ranger" and "Biography of the Assassin", tough guys like Ji Bu and Jing Ke generously sacrificed their heads for a word. This spirit of "three cups of spit, five mountains are light" really makes people sigh and admire. However, history can't bear to look closely. Due to the lack of clear purpose and right and wrong concept, the behavior of such characters has always been respected and praised by historians except Sima Qian, and it is not worth imitating by future generations. Looking at the problem this way does not mean that honesty is not important, but that our esteem for honesty cannot be biased or extreme. When there is a contradiction between "faith" and "righteousness", "natural promise" should obey the law and morality, otherwise an undue tragedy will occur.