Poems that have your cake and eat it too

1. Poems about fish and bear’s paws

Poems about fish and bear’s paws 1. What are the poems about fish and bear’s paws that cannot have both?

The fish is what I want, and the bear's paw is also what I want; you can't have both, for you would give up the fish and take the bear's paw. Life is what I want, and righteousness is what I want. You cannot have both, and you have to sacrifice life for righteousness. Life is what I want, and what I want is more than life, so I don't want to get it. Death is also what I hate, but what I hate is even worse than the dead, so I cannot cure my suffering. If there is nothing more that people want than life, then why not use anything that can lead to life? There is nothing more evil that can be done to a person than the dead, so why not do anything that can be done to save the patient? Because of this, there is no need to do it; because of it, trouble can be avoided but there is no need to do anything. Therefore, what one desires is more than the living, and what one hates is more than the dead. Not only sages have this mind, but everyone has it. A sage will not lose his ears.

"A basket of food, a bean soup, if you get it, you will live, if you don't get it, you will die. If you give it to you, those who practice the Tao will not accept it; if you give it, you will be disdained by beggars. I accept the bells without arguing about etiquette, what more can I do with the beauty of the palace, and the support of my wife and concubines? If I die for the sake of my body, I will not accept it, but now I will give it to my wife and concubines; if I die for my body, I will not accept it, but now I will do it for the sake of the poor people I know. Is this what I call losing my original intention? ”

From Mencius’s “Fish I Want”

2. Fish and Bear’s Paws

The idiom “You can’t have both fish and bear’s paws” comes from Mencius’ “Fish and Bear’s Paws” Fish I Want Chapter".

"Fish is what I want, bear's paw is also what I want; you can't have both, and you would give up fish and take bear's paw. Life is also what I want, and righteousness is also what I want. What I want is what I want; I can't have both, so I sacrifice my life for righteousness." Mencius used an analogy with specific things that people are familiar with in life: fish is what I want, and bear's paws are also what I want. If I can't get both at the same time, I would rather give up the fish and get the bear's paw; life is what I cherish, and righteousness is also what I cherish. If I can't get both at the same time, I would rather give up life and get righteousness. Here, Mencius compares life to a fish and righteousness to a bear's paw, believing that righteousness is more precious than life just as bear paws are more precious than fish.

Of course, you can also think of it as a bear. Love to eat fish is incompatible with fish, so naturally you can't have both.

You can also think of it like when you go to a restaurant to eat, you eat bear paws and you don't have the money to eat fish again. You are happy. Bar

As for why it’s not something else, it’s very simple, just because it’s an idiom and nothing else! ^_^Hope to adopt it^_^

3. Mencius’ quotations about fish and bear’s paws

“Fish is what I want, and bear’s paws are also what I want; the two cannot be the same. If you can have both, you will give up the fish and take the bear's paw.

Life is what I want, and righteousness is what I want. You cannot have both, and you will give up life and take the righteousness." The traditional interpretation - such as this respondent's "Here, Mencius compares life to a fish and righteousness to a bear's paw" is obviously wrong.

Mencius has two meanings here: The first level is the principle of profit, that is, in the face of interests, the greater of the two interests should be chosen. The second level is the principle of righteousness, that is, when it comes to righteousness, righteousness must be the highest criterion, and there is no choice in the face of righteousness.

In other words, if it does not involve the interests of great righteousness, it is better to give up the fish and take the bear's paw, but when it comes to great righteousness, there is no choice. Total failure here, only Eita.

4. Poems related to fish

The ground is full of wilting grass and the reed buds are short, it is the time when the puffer fish is about to come up

The fish is just a flower in the water

< p> Fish caves are hidden in the roots, and passenger boats are tied to the bottom of the branches

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If you are looking for fish in the abyss, it is better to retreat and build a net.

Jiang Taigong fishes, and those who wish to take the bait

The water is clear and the rocks are full of fish, and there are no birds in the deep forest. (Song Dynasty) Su Shi's "Visiting the Two Monks Qin Hui'en and Visiting the Gushan Mountain on the Latest Day"

One night the sea tide filled the river, and the sea bass entered the pond at dawn. ——Yuan Dynasty and Song Dynasty's "Ji Shi"

It is said that Tianjia's flavor is delicious, and the rice flowers lag behind the carp fat. ——Zhu Fengxiang of the Qing Dynasty, "Xiangyin in the Village"

The guest came from afar and left me a pair of carps.

——Anonymous Han Dynasty "Drinking Horses in the Great Wall Grottoes"

Counting peaks on the river, visiting Xianling Mountain, climbing Tongguan Gorge, I wanted to know the merits and asked, but the poem about spearing fish was almost in time

5. Mencius’ Quotations about Fish and Bear’s Paws

“Fish is what I want, and bear’s paws are what I want. You cannot have both, and you would give up fish and take bear’s paws. . Life is what I want, and righteousness is what I want. You can’t have both, and you have to sacrifice life for righteousness."

Traditional interpretation - as this answerer said. Here, Mencius compared life to a fish and righteousness to a bear’s paw,” which is obviously wrong.

Mencius has two meanings here: The first level is the principle of profit, that is, in the face of interests, the greater of the two interests should be chosen. The second level is the principle of righteousness, that is, when it comes to righteousness, righteousness must be the highest criterion, and there is no choice in the face of righteousness. In other words, if it does not involve the interests of great righteousness, it is better to give up the fish and take the bear's paw. But when it comes to righteousness, there is no choice. The so-called "choose the greater of the two benefits and the lesser of the two evils" is completely invalid here, only righteousness big.