Well, there is Bergsons notion of the duree; but here I'm going to focus on the physical notion of time.
For Aristotle, time is an aspect of motion; the most prominent exponent of this view today, is perhaps Barbour; time then would be an emergent phenomenon - it comes to be.
In Physics IV.14, Aristotle writes:
Any changes whose limits are simultaneous have the same time, even if one change is fast, say, while another is fast.
The time of the alteration is still the same, provided it is equal and simultaneous, as the time of the movement. And this explains why, although changes differ from one another and occur in different places, time is everywhere the same.
This though, empirically situated: for do we not see this and feel it everyday - now I drive quickly and he slow - but time taken, as we take it - the same; when this is taken as a principle (but perhaps not as arche); it becomes Newtons notion of absolute time, that flows everywhere the same at the same rate.
A, goes on though:
Now, there is such a thing as movement, and one kind of movement is circular movement. Also, every kind of thing is numbered in terms of some one thing of that kind - units, in terms of a unit, horses in terms of a horse, and so too time is numbered in terms of a determinate time.
A is looking for, the simplest or most basic measure by which time can be measured; then:
It follows from all this, that if that which is primary is the measure of everything akin to itself, then uniform circular motion is a measure par excellence.
because it's number is the most intelligible number there is, there is no uniform alteration, or increase, or coming into being - but there is uniform movement.
Why says he this?
When a boy alters, and becomes a man; what he is before, and what he is after, is distinct and different.
Or when the colour purple is diluted and becomes violet or vermillion, then this too, before and after, is distinct and different.
This, then, is alteration; and it is not uniform; for what it is before, and what it is after - is perceptually, or in itself, or by relation different; and not the same.
But when a ball moves from place to place, and it in itself does not alter; and each place the same; then motion is uniform: though there is change, no change is perceptible - either in the ball itself, or by place.
Also linear motion cannot be potentially infinite, for at some point it would turn back; therefore potentially infinite motion is circular.
This, then, is uniform motion.
It's commonly taken, at this point that A identifies time with the motion of the heavenly sphere; but this isn't what he says; he says rather:
the reason, then, why people think of time as the change of the heavenly sphere is because all other changes are measured by this change; and time too is measured by this change.
Other people think - not A, himself. He identified a properly basic concept of the physical measure of time - but moves no further to it; instead, he gestures towards an analogy.
The basic measure of time is the motion of light - as acknowledged in GR; it is that which is both absolutely at rest and absolutely in motion - both ie equivocally; and it's phase moves in a circle, and this motion is uniform.
So, the question is coherent; and the basic 'logical speed' of time is always everywhere, in itself - the same; what changes, is to see from here, there; ie relatively, from this place, to that place; and then, dilation or contractions of time ...
As though seeing through, a glass - darkly.