Mr. Bao Pengshan said in the first issue of the Analects: Knowing is knowing, not knowing is not knowing, and knowing is also knowing. Many people have misinterpreted this sentence, including Zhu Xi and Qian Mu and others, and the general explanation, including the explanations of the predecessors, all think that they know if they know, and if they don't know, they don't know, which is called wisdom. Why is it that if you know, you will know, and if you don't know, you won't know, you will be called wisdom. This only underscores an honest attitude.
Mr. Bao Pengshan pointed out that the real meaning of this sentence is this: knowing is knowing, that is, what should be known, should be done, to pursue. It means to act and to act. I don't know it. What you shouldn't know, you don't need to know, or you don't need to know. Being able to distinguish between what you need to know and what you don't need to know, pursuing what you should know and not pursuing what you don't need to know, is called wisdom.
It is undeniable that this is a new interpretation, and it can also be used as a family statement, which undoubtedly provides us with a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, and multi-angle reflection for our understanding of the Analects.
Ancient classical Chinese was not punctuated. A lot of literary language requires people to add sentences and read them to break sentences. It is not uncommon for the sentence to be broken in different positions to cause different meanings.
For example, in the Book of Changes, 'Xi Ti, if it is strong, there is no blame', and some versions are judged to be 'Xi Ti Ruo, if it is strong, there is no blame'.
In fact, knowing is knowing, not knowing is not knowing, and this sentence can also be broken in different sentences.
Here are a few different ways to break it:
Like what. One: Knowing is knowing, not knowing is not knowing, and knowing is knowing.
Two: Knowing is not knowing? Knowing is not knowing, but knowing is also knowing.
Three: Knowing is not knowing? Do you know? To know is to know.
Four: Knowing is knowing (in) not knowing is not knowing, and knowing is also knowing.
The first is the common way of judgment, which has two interpretations, one is the often said 'to know is to know, and not to know is not to know, it is called wisdom'. The second is what Mr. Bao Pengshan said, 'what you need to know should be pursued and practiced, and what you don't need to know should not be pursued'.
The second kind of sentence break, knowing is not knowing? Knowing is not knowing, but knowing is also knowing.
The non-pronouncing of fou here means doubt, and the meaning of the whole sentence can be interpreted as: to know is to know? Knowing (yourself) doesn't know is what Tomoya is.
It's a bit like Socrates saying 'I know I don't know anything'.
Or it can be interpreted as: to know is to know? I know but act as if I don't know.,That's what Tomoya is.。
This is undoubtedly a compliment to a humble attitude.
Third, what is known is not known? Do you know? To know is to know.
Does it mean that knowing is knowing? Do you know how to do it? Knowing this is what wisdom is called wisdom.
Fourth, knowing is knowing, and not knowing is not knowing, and knowing is also knowing.
It is much wiser to know that you know than not to know that you are ignorant (not to know).
Are there any other ways to break sentences? Everyone is welcome to discuss.