Dear Chris (Introductory Remarks)

On the name and personhood of Chris

Dear Chris,

Your name may not, in fact, be Chris. I am aware of this and will resolve the uncertainty next time I see you in person, either by ascertaining your real name (which may very well be Chris, but is also likely not to be), or begin calling you Chris aloud until you stop me (if your name so happens to be non-Chris). Another fine and dandy solution entails establishing that your name is not Chris, then retaining the moniker Chris as a pseudonym to protect your identity from all three readers of my blog.

To those unfamiliar with the person who may or may not be Chris, I have known him for approximately two weeks. We are classmates and engage in riotous and intense discussion. Some topics include: ontology, skepticism, God, misogyny, Machiavelli, government function, morality. My favorite assertion to date: “You can’t have a house without a house.” I’ll keep you posted on more quality Chris quotes taken out of context.

On the nature of this post

Chris likes to debate. Written here is the continuation of my thoughts from those discussions, intended for my own understanding rather than privately conquering his arguments out of perfectionism or pride. I sincerely believe that. It is only that my brain blanks with profoundly terrible timing when debating in person, and sometimes I think better at 1 am than 1 pm. (Caffeine was involved this time.)

The Letter

Dear Chris,

We conducted an invigorating conversation about religion Monday morning. I would like to acknowledge here that I do not have good answers to every one of your questions. I want to pursue answers where I have deficits and would appreciate both your patience and your persistence. It has been a while since earnestly debating a new acquaintance, and that sluggish reawakening of the relevant faculties-quick thinking, rationality, adaptability-- and for a purpose other than math, physics, and martial arts- brings with it the vaguely guilty notion that I should have spent more time reading the great works of human civilization and less time inhaling Batman by the volume. (Although gems of understanding hide in the latter, Pascal and Augustine probably present earth-moving ideas of higher quantity and quality.) Anyways, I would genuinely like to learn from our interactions, in person or when I go to look up how one of the Greats would have responded to your questions.

This brings me to the nature of our debates. What are these to you? I will be honest; your motivation may determine whether I engage. Debating purely for debate’s sake, especially without desire of or direction toward a conclusion, is finite entertainment of little lasting value. While I enjoy it, several other uses for my time take priority. If, however, you are open minded, willing to entertain/are actively searching for a different perspective, then I am honored by your involvement of me in your quest for truth (if it exists, I can hear you qualify) and the opportunity to share my deepest beliefs with another human can occasionally take precedence over physics homework.

Speaking of time limits, I must bid you adieu, as it is the wrong side of midnight for me to be awake.

May you find water worthy to slake your thirst for understanding.

Anthea