Why did the ancients say that you can t have both fish and bear s paws?

No, find a bear that can catch fish.

Thinking is to say that a person wants bear's paws and fish, but because of the constraints of conditions, we can't get both at the same time, if we can't have both at the same time, how should we choose.

Meaning: both fish and bear's paw are delicious, I want both, but it is impossible to get both, then I will take the bear's paw, life and righteousness are what I want, but if I can't have both, I would rather lose my life for the sake of righteousness.

"You can't have both fish and bear's paws" comes from "Mencius" "I want to fish as much as I want, and bear's paws are also what I want, and I can't have both fish and take bear's paws" The original meaning is not to say that the two must not have both, but to emphasize that when we can't have both, how should we choose? There are also good things in it, don't have too much, otherwise it won't reflect its value, just like a mountain can't accommodate two tigers, the top of the pyramid is always the rarest and most precious, which is intended to remind people how to choose when faced with trade-offs.

The idiom "You can't have both fish and bear's paws" comes from Mencius's "Fish I Want Chapter".

Fish, I want, bear's paw, I also want; You can't have both, and you can't have both, and those who give up the fish and take the bear's paw are also. Life, also what I want, righteousness, also what I want; You can't have both, and those who sacrifice their lives to take righteousness are also. Mencius used an analogy with concrete things that people are familiar with in their lives:

The fish is what I want, and the bear's paw is also what I want, and in the case that the two cannot be obtained at the same time, I would rather give up the fish and ask for the bear's paw; Life is what I cherish, and righteousness is also what I cherish, and in the case that the two cannot be destroyed and obtained at the same time, I would rather give up life and righteousness. Here, Mencius compares life to a fish and righteousness to a bear's paw, arguing that righteousness is more precious than life just as a bear's paw is more precious than a fish.

Fish and bear's paws can't be both" from whom?

1.Mencius. 2.Zhuangzi.

Correct answer: Mencius.

The idiom "fish and bear's paw can't be both" is instructed from Mencius's "Fish I Want": "Fish, I want it, and the bear's paw is also what I want; You can't have both, and you can't have both, and those who give up the fish and take the bear's paw are also. The original intention is not to say that the two are necessarily incompatible, but rather to emphasize how we should make trade-offs when we can't have both.

You can't have both fish and bear's paws".

To get a bear's paw, you have to use a fish as bait. To get the fish, you have to drive away the bear (lose the bear's paw). Therefore, you can't have both fish and bear's paws.

You can't have both fish and bear's paws".

Mencius, Gaozi I, the author is most likely Mencius.

Related original text: Fish, what I want, bear paws, also what I want, the two can not be both, and those who give up fish and take bear paws are also. Life, what I want, righteousness, also what I want. You can't have both, and those who sacrifice their lives to take righteousness are also.

Related translation: Fish and bear's paws are delicious, I want both, but it is impossible to get both, then I will take the bear's paw, life and righteousness are what I want, but if I can't have both, I would rather lose my life for the sake of righteousness.

You can't have both fish and bear's paws".

Mencius's words are admonishing people to value righteousness and prefer to sacrifice their lives for righteousness, but people often forget this original meaning, and they relish that they cannot have both fish and bear's paws. Although, this is also a truth. People can't be too greedy, things can't let a person take advantage of everything, there will be gains and losses, we should learn to give up the secondary and take care of the important.

You can't have both fish and bear's paws".

Mencius first used an analogy with the specific things that people are familiar with in life: the fish is what I want, and the bear's paw is also what I want. Life is what I cherish, and righteousness is also what I cherish, and in the case that the two cannot be obtained at the same time, I would rather give up my life in favor of righteousness.

Meng Jiyu Duzi compared life to a fish and righteousness to a bear's paw, believing that righteousness is more precious than life, just as a bear's paw is more precious than a fish, which naturally led to the proposition of "sacrificing life for righteousness". This assertion is the central thesis of the whole article.

Mencius demonstrated the meaning of sacrificing one's life for righteousness from three aspects. First, "Life is what I want, and what I want is more than the living, so I don't want to get it; Death is also evil to me, and evil is worse than the dead, so I have no way to get rid of it. These few lines of argument say: . .

Life is what I cherish, but there is something more precious than life that I cherish (referring to justice), so I can't do things that steal my life.

Death is something I hate, but there is something more disgusting than death, so sometimes I don't want to avoid evil. This is a positive argument that righteousness is more precious than life, and that life should be sacrificed when both cannot be both.

1."You can't have both fish and bear's paws" is from Mencius's "Fish I Want".

2. Original text: Fish, I want, bear's paw, also what I want, the two can not be both, and those who give up fish and take bear's paws are also. Life, also what I want, righteousness, and grandchildren I want, can not have both, sacrifice life and take righteousness.

Life is also what I want, and what I want is more than the living, so I don't want to get it. Death is also evil to me, and the evil is worse than the dead, so I can't avoid it. If a man desires more than life, then why should he not use him who can live.

If there is no worse than the dead, then why not avoid the sick! From what is, there is no need to use; Therefore, you can avoid trouble and do nothing. Therefore they desire more than the living, and evil more than the dead.

Not only the sage has a heart, everyone has it, and the sage can not lose his ears.

A spoonful of food, a bean soup, if you get it, you will live, and if you get it, you will die. Huer and with it, the doer of the way is receiving; With it, the beggars disdain. Wan Zhong does not distinguish between etiquette and righteousness, and Wan Zhong is not good for me!

For the beauty of the palace, the dedication of wives and concubines, and the poor who know me to get me? To die for the body and not to accept it, now for the beauty of the palace; He did not accept it for the sake of his death, but now he is dedicated to his wife and concubine; To die for the sake of the body and not to be accepted, and now for the cracked Lu Jian to know the poor to get me to do it: yes or no?

This is a loss of heart.

The fish is what I want, and the bear's paw is what I want, and if I can't get both at the same time, then I'll give up the fish in favor of the bear's paw. Life is what I want, and morality is what I want, and if you can't get both at the same time, then you give up your life and choose morality. Life is what I want, but there are more important things than life that I want, so I don't do anything to steal my life; Death is what I hate, but there are things I hate to talk about more than death, so I don't avoid some calamities.

If people do not pursue something that is more than the model of life, then what can be used as a means of survival? If there is nothing more disgusting than death, then what can be used to escape calamity? There is a way to survive, but some people don't need to, and there is a way to avoid calamity but some people don't.

It is because they seek something more precious than life, and they hate what they hate more than death. It's not just the wise who have this nature, everybody has it, it's just that the wise man is able to keep it from being lost.

A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, if you get it, you can live, and if you don't get it, you will starve to death. But the hungry passers-by refused to accept the impolite shouting for others to eat; Kicking others to eat, the beggar is not willing to accept it.