The relatively happy fish

Asian Philosophy 13 (2 & 3):145 – 164 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Zhuangzi and Hui Shi's discussion about whether Zhuangzi knows 'fish's happiness' is a Daoist staple. The interpretations, however, portray it as humorous miscommunication between a mystic and a logician. I argue for a fine inferential analysis that explains the argument in a way that informs Zhuangzi philosophical lament at Hui Shi's passing. It also reverses the dominant image of the two thinkers. Zhuangzi emerges as the superior dialectician, the clearer, more analytic epistemologist. Hui Shi's arguments betray his tendency (manifest elsewhere) to misstate the conclusions of their shared relativism leading him but not Zhuangzi to intuitive mysticism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,654

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
102 (#155,051)

6 months
12 (#121,159)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Chad Hansen
University of Hong Kong

Citations of this work

Zhuangzi on ‘happy fish’ and the limits of human knowledge.Lea Cantor - 2020 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28 (2):216-230.
XIV—Swimming Happily in Chinese Logic.Michael Beaney - 2021 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 121 (3):355-379.
The relatively happy fish revisited.Norman Y. Teng - 2006 - Asian Philosophy 16 (1):39 – 47.
The Happy Fish of the Disputers.Xiaoqiang Han - 2012 - Asian Philosophy 22 (3):239-256.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
The View From Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Inquiries Into Truth And Interpretation.Donald Davidson - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
What is it like to be a bat?Thomas Nagel - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (October):435-50.

View all 35 references / Add more references