The last answer has a bit of snarky element lost in this translation. 安知 (translated to “whence do you know” here) in ancient Chinese can mean both “how do you know” and “where do you know”. Here clearly they intended the former meaning at the start of the discussion.
In his last comment, Zhuangzi deliberately interpreted it as “you asked me where do I know, I know it here, just above the river”. You can either interpret that as an evasion of the question or a statement that the question is meaningless.
In Daoism, you don’t necessarily even care about “happiness” as that’s a quality internal to oneself. It is understood though that all things have a Way (a dao) which they ideally align with. Being at odds with your dao causes strife.
So a fish, swimming in the water “like it’s supposed to be,” can be thought of as happy because it is living it’s Dao. Zhuangzi perhaps interprets the “how/where do you know” question as bad form on his friends part. Daoists often dismiss a lot of learned knowledge as obfuscsting one from the dao (a principle I don’t fully agree with the old masters on) so trying to dig deeper into the question “but how can you know what a fish thinks?!” is missing the point entirely. Fish are “happy” because, as animals, they naturally live in accordance with Dao.
The last answer has a bit of snarky element lost in this translation. 安知 (translated to “whence do you know” here) in ancient Chinese can mean both “how do you know” and “where do you know”. Here clearly they intended the former meaning at the start of the discussion.
In his last comment, Zhuangzi deliberately interpreted it as “you asked me where do I know, I know it here, just above the river”. You can either interpret that as an evasion of the question or a statement that the question is meaningless.
In Daoism, you don’t necessarily even care about “happiness” as that’s a quality internal to oneself. It is understood though that all things have a Way (a dao) which they ideally align with. Being at odds with your dao causes strife.
So a fish, swimming in the water “like it’s supposed to be,” can be thought of as happy because it is living it’s Dao. Zhuangzi perhaps interprets the “how/where do you know” question as bad form on his friends part. Daoists often dismiss a lot of learned knowledge as obfuscsting one from the dao (a principle I don’t fully agree with the old masters on) so trying to dig deeper into the question “but how can you know what a fish thinks?!” is missing the point entirely. Fish are “happy” because, as animals, they naturally live in accordance with Dao.
Ah, so a kind of “Where did you get the notion the fish was happy?”
“Where? On the bridge over the Hao.”
The great thing about ancient philosophers is sometimes the difference between wisdom and being a smartass is a very thin line.
With daoism being what it is, both are probably correct as well as a secret third interpretation