Philosophy, in its endless array of abstract concepts, can often seem removed from personhood and physical reality. Discussing the theories of a select number of ancient men can be repetitive, overly conventional, and downright boring. I find myself asking, why should I care?
For Agnes Callard, perhaps it is her unconventional choice in marrying her student, living dynamically with her husband and ex-husband, and her philosophical choice to raise children altogether. Or maybe it’s her famous line from a recent New Yorker profile that went viral that read, “marriage is preparation for divorce.” On Friday March 24th, The Harvard Undergraduate Salon for the Sciences and Humanities elicited an unexpected crowd of hundreds of Harvard affiliates for a talk with American philosopher Agnes Callard. A myriad of college students, graduate students, and faculty members hungry for answers to their pithy questions on love were squished on the floor, lining the walls, and even out the door in hopes of hearing Callard share her unorthodox views.
Callard sat in a comfy tan chair at the front of Leverett House’s Library Theater with Washington Post reporter and Philosophy Ph.D. candidate Becca Rothfeld. Displaying her eccentric views through her outfit, Callard wore a deep blue, paisley-patterned whimsical blouse spattered with swirls and polka dots. The audience sat in anticipation and awe of a woman so blatantly herself in every way, eager to hear her thoughts on their deepest questions.
Callard has lived a lifestyle of openness. As described in the New Yorker profile, “Agnes views romantic relationships as the place where some of the most pressing philosophical problems surface in life.” She is a unique philosopher in that most of her work centers around her own romantic life. The article details that she mentions this proudly in a tweet, claiming that “if you’re a real philosopher, you don’t need privacy.” Callard openly discusses her marriages, their faults, and her personal insecurities: an openness that arguably revolutionizes the philosophy of love. During the conversation, Callard acknowledged the lack of available research and scarcity of published work on philosophy and love in credible literary journals.
“I want to be awesome being myself, but I’m a fan of feeling bad,” admitted Callard. When questioning how self-dissatisfaction may define one’s part in their marriage, Callard discussed her extensive dependency on her partner. “I’m a needy person. I’m the dependent one. Talk to me ten times a day.” Callard expressed how she constantly fears this personality trait may cause some decline in her marriage. She explained to the audience that she believes in continuously worrying about being the reason why the love slips away—a sentiment greeted by many looks of understanding and nods in the audience.
In regard to her view on marriage, Callard said, “The process of getting married is for social recognition; it’s like you’re putting on a performance.” In regard to marriage vows, she argued that “promises feel a lot more binding when other people watch you make them.” Callard peppered her philosophical answers and strong comparisons with crowd-pleasing anecdotes to help the audience understand and relate to her. She categorized the three different kinds of marriages that she believes exist: marriage for external gains such as children and home security, marriage for only love, and marriage for aspirations to become a better person. She also proposed the existence of a fourth option.
Perhaps we have all been in a relationship or watched a friend go through one that began with healthy dependence, but soon shifted, as lovers began to share an unhealthy amount of ideas, perspectives, and activities. Rothfeld anecdotally referred to this fourth model as “a blob marriage,” which caused Callard to giggle in response. Callard initially explained that the point of marriage in all models is to exist together, but for this fourth model, “talking with each other, having sex with each other…it would all be pretty difficult if you became one person!”
This conversation curated a distinctly casual and girly undertone, almost as if the two were old friends reunited and discussing their sex lives as now-mature teenagers. Callard even mentioned earlier that several new audiences of podcasts she spoke on questioned, “is Agnes a professor and a philosopher? She sounds like a teenager!”
During the Q&A session, a student posed the idea that love can be tainted by hyper-intellectualization (in essence, too many people discussing something that cannot really be understood and tainting the concept itself). “We all walk around pretty confused in a cloud of fuzz for most of our days, pursuing things even though we don’t know what we want,” Callard responded. “And I think we could do better with even just ten percent less confusion.” The same then applies to studying love. A concept so confusing and subjectively defined deserves to be studied, even if millions of hours of communal work only detail a few small tidbits of novel understanding.
“Falling in love is incredibly unsafe, like lighting a match and throwing it somewhere,” said Callard. “When you fall in love with someone, there’s this perfect that seems possible. Marriage is an attempt to hold on to that for your whole life.”
Gauri Sood ’26 (gaurisood@college.harvard.edu) left Leverett Library Theater with a wrist cramp from typing on the floor and rethinking her entire approach to relationships.