Fish and Bear Paw: What to pick in a difficult decision?

A recent talk with friends about their distaste of bear hunting reminds me of a commonly used Chinese idiom: 魚與熊掌; literally means "fish and bear paw", it means "you can't have it both ways", not unlike "you can't eat your cake and have it too." Allegedly it was suppose to be superior to shark fin, which really is only popular in Southern China.

Now if only I can find some hunting buddies, figure out how to even process the rest of the bear, get the hunting license, and cook that bear paw, then I can go out to prove whether that's true or not.

Now like many chinese idioms, its origin either a direct quote or paraphase from a Chinese Classic. In this case, it is from the Book of Mencius, one of the four great books of the Chinese classic. It is from First Half of Gaozi (告子上, Book 6A) Section 10
 (organization applied for ease of comparison)

///
孟子曰：
「魚，我所欲也；熊掌，亦我所欲也，二者不可得兼，舍魚而取熊掌者也。
生，亦我所欲也；義，亦我所欲也，二者不可得兼，舍生而取義者也。
生亦我所欲，所欲有甚於生者，故不為苟得也；
死亦我所惡，所惡有甚於死者，故患有所不辟也。
如使人之所欲莫甚於生，則凡可以得生者，何不用也？
使人之所惡莫甚於死者，則凡可以辟患者，何不為也？
由是則生而有不用也，由是則可以辟患而有不為也。
是故所欲有甚於生者，所惡有甚於死者，
非獨賢者有是心也 ，人皆有之，賢者能勿喪耳。」

「一簞食，一豆羹，得之則生，弗得則死。
嘑爾而與之，行道之人弗受；
蹴爾而與之，乞人不屑也。
萬鍾則不辨禮義而受之。萬鍾於我何加焉？

為宮室之美、妻妾之奉、所識窮乏者得我與？

鄉為身死而不受，今為宮室之美為之；

鄉為身死而不受，今為妻妾之奉為之；

鄉為身死而不受，今為所識窮乏者得我而為之，是亦不可以已乎？

此之謂失其本心。」

///

Mencius said:
I like fish, but I also like bear paw, If I cannot pick both at the same time, I would give up the fish and pick bear paw.
I like also like to live, but I also like righteousness. If I cannot pick both at the same time, and so I would give up my right to live for righteousness.
I desire living, but I have a desire stronger than living, so I would not live through improper ways.
I detest dying, but I have a detest stronger than dying, so there are some dangers I would not avoid.
If there are no desire stronger than living, then for those that have ways to live, why wouldn't they do so?
If there are no detest stronger than dying, then for those that can avoid danger, why wouldn't they do so?
There are cases where one have ways to live but chose not to, (and) there are cases where one can avoid danger but chose not to.
This is because there are desires stronger than living, (and) there are detestation there are stronger than death,
This is not exclusive for those enlightened, for all men have such decision, just that those enlightened does not forget such words

A basket of rice, a bowl of bean soup, one live if they get it, one die if they don't.
Offered in an insulting voice however, and any traveler will refuse it
Offered after they are trampled however, and any beggar will refuse it

Yet a man will accept of ten thousand zhong (note: zhong is a metallic globet; here implies bribe), without any consideration of propriety or righteousness. What can the ten thousand zhong add to him?
For beautiful mansions, for the service of wives and concubines, or for helping his poor and needy acquaintance?
Though one is willing to give up a bounty to be saved from death, they will do so for beautiful mansions;
Though one is willing to give up a bounty to be saved from death, they will do so for the service of wives and concubines.
Though one is willing to give up a bounty to be saved from death, they will do so for helping his poor and needy acquaintance, was it then not possible likewise to decline this?
Thus this is the lost of one's proper heart and mind.

///

While the modern definition of the idiom merely means "deciding is difficult", or "one must pick one over the other," the full message is that "one must pick justice and good over another." What it does not shy away, however, is that picking justice IS difficult, because living in modern times is not just "survival". Desire for wealth -- nice house, a nice looking partner -- what Christianity defined as "the world"-- is something that man are tempted to across time and culture, and for this desire, one can easily lose their moral fiber.

Yet even just from the last example (helping the poor and needy acquaintances),  we will notice that there is one huge issue with "Confucianism justice", as it is defined differently in a modern western world. Regardless of whether one decide to justify their actions based on Christian faith, or merely human relationship, "justice" will typically defined as one based on "improving the world first, with your hearts and mind based upon it."

Yet in Confucian order, it can be summed up with an idom: 修身齊家治國平天下. Read in such order, it stated that "one should take care of one self, then they can take care of their family, then they can govern the nation, and bring peace to the world." Originate from a paraphrase in Great Learning (大學), it can help explain why a Sino culture is focused upon improving one self. Derived from this, we have Tiger Mom in the United States, and the Chinese School experiment in United Kingdom. There is no doubt that it helps improve the students' academic grade, but in terms of a western society, is it truly beneficial to grow a human being that will truly help the world? Or does it help create injustice, where it placed faults and blames upon those less fortunate?

I am going to leave this question open, since I feel that the term "justice", "righteous" et cetera need to be defined in Confucian terminology first, before we can compare with the Christian worldview or a non-religious view; but do keep in mind that there are differences, and some of these differences will make the modern western worldview incompatible to those of Confucianism.

In the beginning: The 24 characters that express the Confucianism worldview

Why don't we dive into the Confucian worldview the same way kids did eight-hundred years ago - with the Three Character Classics (三字經)?

人之初，性本善；性相近，習相遠。
苟不教，性乃遷；教之道，貴以專。

Translation:
Men at their birth, are naturally good; Their natures are much the same; their habits become widely different.
If foolishly there is no teaching, the nature will deteriorate. The right way in teaching, is to attach the utmost importance to thoroughness.

Like many classical writings, the text is not that straight forward. One common comparison is by tying and contrasting the first six characters with the concept of "original sin", as some websites such as the YellowBridge utilized. As far as I can tell, those words means nothing more than what is stated: we are all gravitated to do good and behave good toward others or outwardly. However, our habit will deviate us not just from each other, but also from this good nature, which implied to be "bad". And the way to prevent this "deterioration of the good nature" is by education.

In short, it means that everyone are born with the same nature, and this nature can be kept, if they are willing to be educated properly.

A corollary from this: if the person's nature deteriorate, then the education system that teach them is flawed is flawed. In fact, a few lines down, you encounter the following:

養不教，父之過；教不嚴，師之惰。
子不學，非所宜；幼不學，老何為？
玉不琢，不成器；人不學，不知義。

If one merely feed without teaching, the father is a bad parent. If one merely teach without strictness, the teacher is lazy.
If the child does not learn, he being improper; if he does not learn when young, what will he be at old age?
If jade is not polished, it won't be useful; if man does not learn, he will not know righteousness.

While it is a good statement on the surface, when you read between the lines, you will notice a few things:

• Blame the father for just feed his offspring
• Blame the teacher for not having a tough education
• Blame the children for not willing to accept the teaching.

Now I know that some will say that this is not different from the traditional education. Yes... but that's the thing: it's "traditional", not how modern run-of-the-mill western education proceed, nor how preferred indigenous education would go (as shown in "Schooling the World") ; instead, it's build upon how the child should act, instead of building an education upon the child's uniqueness. No such thing as "indigenous culture", nor "mental disability". In Sino sphere, everything can be changed, for "better".

Extending from this ideology, the Sino concept also does not believe in "what people are born with" "what had been done before" for things outside of learning, which includes but not limited to earning capability, sexual orientation, and many more; and that these can all be changed through "tough educations". Those that react poorly are considered as failure, and is in fact encouraged in Sino societies.

There is an academic thesis from Taiwan in March 2016 by a Dr. Mu-Hong Chen, that outright claim that most of the "ADHD" are merely kids to be immature. I highly doubt this kind of hypothesis can even occur in a modern western society.

On a sidenote, the kids of Anicent China would not know the meaning; even Dr. Sun Yet-San as a child was said to suffer a beating in a class just for asking the meaning of this ode... but that is a topic for another day.

Introduction

Hello, everyone; welcome to my blog.

This blog will contain my musing based on Confucianism Canon -- especially the Four Books and Five Classics -- but also other related classics that was also frequently used, such as the Three Character Classics (三字經). This is not in depth or authoritative, of course, but should be enough to explore the sino-sphere thought progress and worldview.