Love is Not Quantifiable

Of all the emotions, love is one of the most talked about and debated. These discussions happen between friends and family members and lovers themselves. There is great deal less serious academic/philosophical discussion, though there is some, and there are even some purportedly "scientific" studies of the topic. I put scientific in quotes because in my view the study of emotional states like love falls mostly (though not entirely) outside the purview of the sciences. Mostly, the discourse on the topic is driven by romantic poets and romantic literature in general. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that it does tend to romanticize the topic much more so than any other emotional state. And yes, of course romantic poets and authors are going to romanticize the topic of love, because that is what they do. They are romance writers after all. Unfortunately all of this sometimes leads people to believe that love cannot be an object of serious thought or discussion. I disagree with that contention and hope to illustrate why with an example here.

"Types" of Love

There are two areas of love that are of particular interest to me. One relates to the so called types of love. Commonly, love for other people is said to be either romantic or familial or friendly. People love their wives in a different way then they love their mom or dad or sisters or brothers, and they love their close friends in an even different way. Many times the term like is used in place of love when it comes to friends. The more close the friend the more close to a loving relationship it is said to become. It is also suggested that there can be a type of love of things, for example, a love of inanamite objects or animals. So and so loves his or her car or loves his or her pets, etc. Generally love of this type is considered less "serious", except perhaps in the case of animals, where genuine love, approaching that one might feel for another person, is thought to be possible. That is a topic for another day perhaps, but would be nothing but a distraction for now. Also, whether or not there are types of love and what those different types are is is a debatable and very interesting topic in its own right, but it is not the focus of the below discussion. Instead the focal point will be a different aspect of love that many people rarely consider, but I think most believe (or say they believe) and that is that one can love one person more than some other person.

Quantities of Love

I will concede for now that there are types of love and restrict myself to romantic love between two people for purposes of the following argument. I will take a common example where a given person claims to be (believes themselves to be) in romantic love with more than one person at the same time. Let us assume that all parties to this love triangle know the situation and also believes they are in love with this one person who loves them and one other. One of the lovees in this example may ask the two person lover which person they love "more." The assumption underlying this question is that it is actually possible to (romantically) love one person more than another person (at the same time). In other words that love is quantifiable. In other words that the lover has only a specific quantity of love available, and, because they love more than one person, it must be the case that either each lovee is loved equally or one is loved more than the other. The lover, if he or she does not want to get themselves into a very big fight would most likely reply that they love each person equally. However, in my view, even this would not be an accurate answer, and, in fact, it would be incorrect, and more than that, logically incoherent, for that answer assumes that love is quantifiable, and it is not. It is not actually possible to (romantically) love one person more than another because you either love someone (romantically) or you do not. Therefore, it is not possible to love two or three or any number of people equally either. You either love each person as an individual or you do not love them each as an individual. Importantly, the love you have for each is the same, though it is not equal, because it is not quantifiable in that way, or any way.

Why Does It Matter?

You might be asking yourself, so what? Why does that matter? Who cares if love is quantifiable or not? It might make the two person lover's life a little less painful since he or she would not need to give an answer when they are inevitably asked by each lovee who they love more, but it provides no actual benefit to the greater world. Moreover, what is the downside if love is accepted as being quantifiable? I am not sure there is a clear benefit to love being non-quantifiable, however, there is absolutely at least one massive and probably many more smaller downsides to love as quantifiable. The potential downsides are so great that we must actively reject the idea of quantities of love or we risk losing the specialness of love as an emotional state which only humans, and perhaps a few non human animals can and do experience. To understand why I belive this you need to understand a bit about neurophilosophy and reductionist thought. Specifically how reductionism applies to neuroscience and the study of cognitive states.

The Reductionist Take On Love

Hard core reductionists, heavily represented in the uppere echelons of the neurosciences, believe cognitive states, including emotions, can be reduced down to neurochemical states of the brain. They believe that if and when we know enough about how the brain works on a bio/neuro/chemical basis we will be able to diagnose, predict, and even recreate specific cognitive states. We may even be able to recreate them in non biological objects like highly sophisticated computers. For them the question of the quantities of emotions including love could be described by the relative amounts of certain important brain chemicals like dopamine or serotonin, etc and/or the relative amounts and intensities of neuronal firings in specific parts of the brain over certain specific periods of time. The nature of their beliefs would force them to insist that there can be quantities of love and they are described by the relative ratios/amounts/whatever of X, Y and Z chemical or neuronal firings or combinations thereof. Incidentally they would also be required to insist that there are types of love, but that is not of primary interest here. As a research scientist myself reductionism has a certain appeal. It meshes well with the scientific slant of my world view which leans heavily in the direction of the eventual explainability of all observable phenomena. Thus one might be led to believe that I would have great sympathy for the reductionist view of cognitive states. I do not, instead I fear it, because if it is true, man becomes nothing more than a complex machine, no different in principle, than a sophisticated computer. Hard to believe that something as wonderful as love could lead us down such a dark reductionist path, and yet that is exactly where we are forced if it is accepted as quantifiable.

So, if love is not quantifiable, does that by necessity mean that it is infinite? No, I do not believe it does. No human being is capable of feeling an infinite amount of any emotion, love is no exception. If they did, they would no longer be human, but a form of a God or an actual God. While I do not believe the human mind/brain can be reduced to a series of neurochemical rxns that can be fully defined and reproduced to replicate specific cognitive states, I do believe it is in principle reducible to something. Since it can be reduced, it cannot be infinite, since by definition that which is infinite is not reducible. As emotions like love are experienced within/by the human mind/brain they cannot be infinite either. What is left then? Not quantifiable and not infinite. Unfortunately I do not have a good answer, or any answer, other than to say, much like the human mind, and the unanswered hard question of conciousness it remains a mystery. I sincerely hope it remains a mystery for a very, very long time, because the consequences of "solving" the mystery are so downright disturbing and depressing. For, exactly as with love as quantifiable, solving it forces us to accept that we are nothing more than sophisticated machines. That is a thing that I very much do not want to believe is true.