Thinking Marathon

We have this subject, Philosophy, where we are required to think critically. Our teacher decided to give this activity where we need to think both sides. We need to place ourselves in both situations and think about what will we do if we are them. This school activity excites me because I like reasonings. I found it difficult at first but that's fine since nothing is easy when you're starting to learn.

The first question our teacher gave to us is "Is an unexamined life worth living?". You can answer yes or no. But in our case, we need to prove why yes and no. In short, we need to give two hypotheses and explain them thoroughly. These are my answers:

H1: Yes, the unexamined life is full of uncertainty and surprises, and this makes life exciting. If life is predictable, everything will be easy and boring thus, no room for growth and improvement; no pain, no gain.

H2: No, the unexamined life is not worth living because nothing can be achieved if you didn't know what to do. If anyone will just go with the flow, there will be no progress at all. It's like we're looking for something that didn't exist, searching in darkness.

The question is pretty simple but I have a hard time explaining my answer especially on hypothesis number 2. I always agree that unexamined life is much better and to explain the second hypothesis, I need to think why others think that way. I need to consider their standpoint.

On our second thinking marathon activity, we were given a situation and ask to answer the questions provided.

Situation:

Ahmet, Nasruddin’s neighbor, wants to borrow Nasruddin’s donkey. He goes to Nasruddin’s house to ask if he can borrow the animal, explaining he needs it because he has some important and very hard work to accomplish. “My donkey is not here”, answers Nasruddin, bothered by the request. But as they are talking, Ahmet hears from behind the house the bray of the donkey. Hee-haw! Hee-haw!
Ahmet gets angry: “What kind of friend are you, you who claim your donkey is not there when it is actually right here, in your garden! I just heard him!”
And Nasruddin answers: “And you, what kind of friend are you, who prefer to believe my donkey, rather than believe me!”

Then the following questions were provided.

1) Should Ahmet believe Nasruddin or the donkey?

My answers:

H1: Yes, Ahmet should believe his friend Nasruddin. Although he heard the bray of the donkey, there is no concrete evidence of the animal's existence. He didn't even see if the donkey was there. He just heard it. Maybe the sound he heard is coming from another place or from their neighbor who's also raising a donkey.

H2: No, Nasrusddin is already caught lying to his friend Ahmet. Although he only heard the bray of the donkey, it is already concrete evidence that such an animal is already present in Nasruddin's backyard. Let's say that the sound came from their neighbor which is also raising a donkey. If that's so, why does Ahmet get angry if he can just borrow from their other neighbor? This means that Nasruddin is the only person in that neighborhood who owns a donkey.

2) Is Nasruddin a liar?

My answers:

H1: Yes, simply because Nasruddin didn't tell Ahmet that the donkey is there in his backyard. It says that he was bothered at the request of Ahmet and most likely, he will lie because he's unsure of the intention of the borrower.

H2: No, he didn't lie. Everyone has the right to refuse if they don't want to. In the first place, it's Nasruddin's property, so he has the right to refuse. He just said that the donkey was not there as an indirect way of saying "no, I didn't want to lend it to you.". Maybe he did it in a way that Ahmet won't be offended.

And after submitting your answer, someone must critique your answer. So far, no one is trying to judge my answer except for the first thinking marathon activity. I didn't know if that's a critique but it seems an approval to my perspective. Anyways you're can try to critique my answers. It is much appreciated

Goodbye and until next time!