That’s an asnine argument. A human being having an intuitive understanding of another human being’s experience is more reasonable than a human being having an intuitive understanding of a fish’s experience. Even if we don’t account for this, it’s reasonable to expect that people are able to explain how they know things.
I’m guessing the point of the story is to motivate the discussion on the subject of knowing another beings’s experience.
Unfortunately it’s written in the ancient Chinese philosophy style, very foreign to modern audiences. Maybe it sounds better in the original Chinese, idk.
This is more parable than anecdote, meant to highlight the wisdom of Zhaungzi and invoke questions about how we know what we know. Zhaungzi in particular likes to be extra and speak in vague and often nonsensical ways that rely on contradiction and fundamentally unknowable aspects of reality to make/not make his point
That’s an asnine argument. A human being having an intuitive understanding of another human being’s experience is more reasonable than a human being having an intuitive understanding of a fish’s experience. Even if we don’t account for this, it’s reasonable to expect that people are able to explain how they know things.
I’m guessing the point of the story is to motivate the discussion on the subject of knowing another beings’s experience. Unfortunately it’s written in the ancient Chinese philosophy style, very foreign to modern audiences. Maybe it sounds better in the original Chinese, idk.
Here’s a modern take on that idea
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F
Epistemological externalism enters the chat
https://iep.utm.edu/int-ext/
This is more parable than anecdote, meant to highlight the wisdom of Zhaungzi and invoke questions about how we know what we know. Zhaungzi in particular likes to be extra and speak in vague and often nonsensical ways that rely on contradiction and fundamentally unknowable aspects of reality to make/not make his point