SMU philosophy professor Dr. Robert Howell gives a lecture titled “The Incoherence of Love.” (Lizzie Brubaker)
Wednesday marked another typical Valentine’s Day. Roses, chocolates, flowers and love were on the minds of most SMU students. But for some philosophy students, yesterday’s Valentines celebration was put on hold as they questioned the existence of love itself and explored the inconsistencies of the human emotion that remains an indecipherable mystery to most, even on Valentine’s Day.
The special Valentine’s Day edition of the Philosophy Club featured Dr. Robert Howell and his lecture titled, “The Incoherence of Love.” His lecture was a “philosophical look at the fatal flaw in the logic of love.”
Junior Christina Mountz said, “The mere title of this lecture intrigued me. Love is something most people do not think in depth about – it is just there. I was impressed by Dr. Howell’s arguments on why love, in fact, does not exist.”
Howell began his lecture by saying, “I have good news for you and bad news for you. The bad news is that nobody loves you. But the good news is you don’t need to worry, you are not alone; nobody loves anybody.” The room sounded with a low murmur of whispers as Howell continued to refute the existence of love. He began by pointing out the many contradictions with romantic love, but not before he invited the audience at any point to convince him that his arguments against love were wrong.
“My wife would be quite happy if you could convince me otherwise,” Howell said. He expanded on the works of Søren Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre, referring to their studies and thoughts on love. He said that the biggest inconsistency with love is that the immediate characteristics that lead us to love someone are the things that are not eternal and are subject to change.
Senior Marissa Dendeker agreed that it is true that the things that first make us love someone can disappear with time, from an accident, or some other rare occurrence.
“Knowing that leads me to wonder if those things change and we stay with someone, do we do so out of obligation, or perhaps because we are bound to the notion of commitment?” Dendeker said. “If so, then I think Dr. Howell is correct in the statement that love does not exist.”
Howell explored many different reasons for his argument against love such as freedom, eternality, duty and immediacy.
Howell advocated the idea of luck over love. He argued that people meet everyday under fragile circumstances, and gave examples such as “it was lucky the day you met your ‘true love’ that he or she didn’t eat garlic, or that you didn’t meet his/her more attractive roommate first.”
In conclusion Howell stated, “We can hope that we are lucky enough to make a commitment that is never tested, or that our significant other doesn’t become dumber or uglier, but all that is based on luck not love.” As the audience laughed at his previous remark Howell added, “My conclusion is: forget about love, the best you can hope for is to get lucky.”
