Claudia focussed on a number of key concepts in the topic. The question whether love could be "measured" she took to mean "will it change, grow, erode etc.?" "Time", she thought, is dependent on change for its existence. "Love", however, is not so easy to define, though simpler to describe: "Real love is irrational", she claimed, "and that which is irrational is eternal. That which is rational does not endure". In this sense it is like friendship, for which there is no biological or evolutionary imperative, but which yet endures.
What is love?
Clifford asked whether there is a "philosophical" definition of "love" -- to which Tom replied that it means "valuing someone". Given that definition, it is clear that love can be measured in time, since the value you attach to them can be related to the amount of time you spend with them. Val supported the concept of irrationality as a feature of "real love": otherwise, she asked, why do so many women fall in love with men who are bad for them and who, rationally, they know therefore have no "value" (or even a negative value) for them? But Tom maintained that, even in such cases, the woman must be deriving some "value" from the relationship.
Steve pointed out that "time spent" and "value attached" could also be indicators of duty, rather than love, and Val made the point that there are different kinds of love, to which different considerations might apply (e.g., maternal love, as opposed to romantic love).
Different kinds of time
At Steve's suggestion the focus of the discussion was shifted from "love" to "time", and members were invited to consider whether there are also different kinds of time and, if so, how many.
Alex distinguished between objective or "physical" time and subjective or "psychological" time: the former refers to the movement of the earth and the sun, while the latter refers to feelings such as "time stood still", or "time passed slowly". Steve pointed out that physical time is a quantitative form of measurement, while psychological time measures qualitatively. In this context Tom remarked that experiments have shown that people locked in a cave, for example, for several days, with no way of marking the passage of time, eventually move to an instinctive cycle which is different from (and longer than) the 24 hour day. The figures 32 and 27 hours were suggested by Tom and Steve, respectively.
Catherine then put forward a third and fourth type of time: "conventional" time describes time as recorded by man-made instruments such as clocks and watches, whereas "relativistic" time refers to Einstein's concept that space and time are a continuum. When time is measured in the latter way, as a fourth dimension of space, motion at high speeds (i.e. approaching the speed of light) can cause objective changes in the rate at which time passes (and therefore, e.g., in the rate at which people age).
Several other measures of time were also mentioned. Another form of physical time is the woman's experience of a monthly cycle. Another form of psychological time is the quickening of the pulse rate that occurs when our emotions are aroused (e.g. by love -- a case where a "conventional" measure of time can, by being disturbed, serve as a "measure" of love). And "cultural" time could refer to the different ways in which different cultures measured time (and love?). The latter could be regarded as a collective (or conventional) form of psychological time.
Clifford asked whether there are circumstances in which time would, in practice, stop. For example, if the secret of eternal life were found by tweaking people's DNA, would time then stop (for them)? Tom said that this is, in theory, possible now, because science has discovered what it is that causes the death of cells (telomers): all they have to do is find out how to switch them off. But, even in these circumstances, time would not "stop" because the person concerned would continue having experiences, and be changed thereby.
The effects of time on love
Given the different definitions of time, Roy suggested that we proceed to consider which of them (if any) is most relevant when considering the measurement of love, or when considering time as an antidote to love ("Time, the great healer"). Claudia said that psychological and conventional time are the most relevant, but that the true test is the absence of change over time: if feelings change, even after 20 or 30 years, then it could not be "real love" -- nor could it have been, even at the beginning. Alex, on the other hand, argued that there is always a beginning and an end to love, but that this does not diminish the value, or the quality, of the love involved. The question was then raised as to whether love has an "expiration date"!
Roy said that the topic of discussion centres round the question whether either love or time are "absolutes"; and maintained that both are "relative" in the sense that they can be measured, and frequently are measured by comparing them with other things. Thus the feeling that time is passing quickly, or slowly, (psychological time) can be checked by looking at a clock. Relativistic time can be checked by comparing the clock on the returning space ship with the clock that stayed on earth. Lovers might sometimes say "You don't love me as much as I love you" or " ... as much as you used to" (a measure of the quantity of love).
One way of looking at the topic is to say "What are the relevant criteria to apply to love? Is time one of them? What are the others?" One might by this means be led to consider
Quantity: "I love you more than ....."
Consequences: "I love you so much that, if anything happens to you, I will ..."
Time: "I loved you the moment I first saw you, whereas you took a little longer".
The question of how to apply time to love then would then need to be defined more carefully, and the different applications of time considered in the light of their different effects on love. For example, the passage of time can strengthen, deepen, or erode it; the amount of time spent together (or apart) could do the same. As Catherine pointed out, time can measure the evolution of love. And Clifford said he thinks love is one of a number of "universals", along with laughter and crying, for example.
Back to love
Val said there is no doubt that love can change -- either for better or worse. Tom said that, nevertheless, so long as love remains, there must be some value in the relationship -- although it must be admitted that the conscious evaluation of the relationship might well conflict with the unconscious.
Steve claimed that, according to some philosophers, "love doesn't necessarily involve emotion". As an example, he quoted from Paul Tillich's book, Love, Power, and Justice:
"Love is the moving power of life"
"Love is the drive towards unity of the separated"
On this view, love is a matter of choice. Steve then asked whether "true" love is an aspect of destiny ("another time word") in the sense that "I know it's going to happen, but I don't know when". If so, then it must by definition be incapable of measurement. Claudia agreed, repeating her basic contention that "real love" must partake of the eternal, and therefore be incapable of being measured in time. But Catherine pointed out that the reverse need not necessarily apply, and that "love could be a measure of time".
Steve then made perhaps the most memorable pronouncement of the night. After distinguishing between "eternity" as "everlasting time" and what some writers have called the "eternal now", he said: "Eternity is something that can be here today and gone tomorrow.... In that sense, love is eternal, but the effects of love can be measured in time."
++++
Arrangements for the next meeting
It was agreed that the next discussion would be held on a date in early May (possibly Tuesday 2nd), that the topic would be
"Technology Now"
and that it would be introduced by Catherine Mayor, and moderated by Roy Butler.
This page was placed on this web site on 27 April 2000.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.