The point of the article is that these “wise sayings” are indeed warped by time and mistranslated and in fact some are used in ways that the original authors no longer intended. But we say them anyway..

The modern form of the phrase (have AND eat) is semantically and logically identical to the colloquial form (eat AND have). While the older form may be slightly easier to interpret, this results only because we have a common mistaken subconscious assumption that something occurring at the beginning of a sentence must exist temporally before something occurring later in the same sentence. 

In other words, we subconsciously think (as we read a sentence from left-to-right) that what we read first must have happened (or existed) earlier in time, and what we read last must have happened (or existed) later in time. Nevertheless, there is actually no reference to time in the phrase. It does not say “have AND THEN eat”, it just says “have AND eat”. If it did in fact say “have AND THEN eat” it would of course be semantically different, and logically incorrect, and then you would have a legitimate basis for disliking the saying. 

I was also somewhat confused by this saying earlier in life before I realized the mistaken temporal assumption I was making. Since then I’ve realized there is nothing wrong with the phrase; I was simply misinterpreting it. In the end, if you eat your cake, you will no longer have it. It’s as simple as that. The order in which you say it makes no difference. Along the same lines, a “sergeant major” is just a “major sergeant”, and an “attorney general” is just a “general attorney”. We use one form over the other only because it sounds fancier, not because it means anything different. 

I also have to disagree with your interpretations of #6 (Absence makes the heart grow fonder) and #7 (You can’t buy love). Unless you’re just being facetious with the whole article, I don’t know why you would disagree with #6. It is a truism with human beings that being separated from someone we care about makes us miss them and appreciate them all the more when reunited (if we ever cared about them in the first place). You seem to be interpreting the phrase only from the standpoint of it being used as a false excuse for separation, instead of it being an observation of human nature when separated by circumstance. 

As for #7, the phrase is not “You can’t buy simulated affection and/or companionship”. Those things are most certainly attainable through the application of cash. However you’ll need to come up with a much better example than Hugh Hefner’s temporary girlfriends to disprove the adage that you cannot buy genuine USDA Grade A “love”. The phrase implies that you cannot create sincere emotions with money, which as far as I can tell is absolutely correct. 

I would have to agree at least partially with the rest of your interpretations. The other sayings have either been warped by time and bad translations or are simply pointless platitudes that don’t actually mean anything. 

Happy Holidays 
(You say you like criticism, so here is my gift to you. Enjoy!) 

And let me know if you do again. I’d love to see it (and practice my Chinese:)

I would love more Chinese readers and hope they enjoy the blog.