what is the difference between "loving" someone and "being in love" with someone?

I 'love' my kids, mother, and sister.

I'm 'in love' with my wife.

I think that being "in love" refers to the period of infatuation that one can experience with people or even objects, such as food, houses, clothes, etc.  It is visceral and more likely to be short lived.  In terms of people, it tends to be a physiological attraction that is not a conscious choice...the "spark that is allowed to blossom.  Loving someone, on the other hand, is a consious choice that generally comes with some type of long term commitment.  

Hi

           I wonder how the ancient or old concept of love compares to the concept of love within our modern times.  For instance, how would it be defined back in the times of the Renaissance to that of today?

           Thank you

           George

 

Being in love connotes an emotional response; loving someone is a commitment and may or may not include emotions.  The concept of love today seems to have dropped the commitment part, since many dissolve relationships when it becomes inconvenient or requires more work.

@Gmartin, I'll fire up my time machine and go check for you.  And @Callandor, referring to any sort of reality while talking about 'love' is really frowned upon.

I think MtnChick condensed it quite well.  The bible need not be immaterial, but is not necessary to define it either.  Love is independent of religion.

On the contrary, Love is the basis of Religion and can not be separated from it.  The whole message of the Bible is itself the best example of what Love is.

Earlier Western cultures tended to separate love from commitment more than is considered acceptable today. Marriages tended to be more often arranged or agreed to as appropriate for advancement, convenience or basic mutual benefit. (And not even necessarily 'mutual'.) Emotional relationships outside of marriage tended to be better accepted as long as they were discrete. Men and women more often had lovers outside of marriage.

Widespread marriage for love tends to be a more modern social organization. Modern mobility seems to be a factor in the shift in tendency.

Before the Renaissance for example, essentially no one would be surprised at a marriage with no basis in love.

Tom

"Being "in love" means you enter a state where you project an image of an imaginary person you think you are in love upon a real person. "  That is so well put, couldn't agree more.  Been there, done that, seen others do it over and over again.

Hi Everyone,

            I sincerely want to thank everyone for the wonderful and insightful feedback given to this question.  Personally, I found myself reading and rereading the comments as I reflected upon the points given.  I especially appreciated the psychological theories brought up to explain the difference between being in love with someone and loving someone.  And, I agree wholeheartedly that true or pure love is an action and not necessarily a feeling.  Very well put!  It is one thing to tell someone that you love them and another to actually show it.  

             Thanks once again for the well thought out replies given to this post.  I am walking away from this post knowing much more about my relationship  and myself.

              George

             

Because falling in love is based on an illusion and not reality, it gradually wears off.

I have to disagree strongly with that statement unless there's a slight rewording. Falling in love refers to the transition, which is a change in state. As a change, it doesn't quite "wear off". It simply becomes a familiar state. There is no longer a sensation arising from the change because the change is completed.

However, once the new state becomes the normal state, it becomes harder to detect by way of how it feels. Most (or all) of our feelings tend to fade over time. A kind of exhaustion happens in nerves. They tend to react to differences rather than sameness.

I have fallen in love at least a dozen times in the past 26 years, each time with the same person. I've never been out of love in that time, but I can recognize the feeling that comes over me as some new realization adds a dimension or illuminates an old from a new perspective.

It doesn't necessarily go away nor even fade away. If it's real, it simply becomes familiar. That might be a little sad. When it can be reawakened though, the sad aspect isn't there.

Tom

Becomes familiar... sure. But the as the brilliance of the illusion fades, so too do the sensations associated with it.

http://secretsoffreudandjung.blogspot.com/2006/06/freud-and-jung-and-falling-in-love.html
http://www.shadowdance.com/articles/isitloveorprojection.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12soJiCPcc

I don't doubt that it's possible to stay in love for a long time, but that suggests to me one never gets to know ones partner properly, but is rather continually projecting a magical, mysterious image on her instead. May be this is good thing?

...but that suggests to me one never gets to know ones partner properly,...

The alternative would suggest to me that neither partner ever changed. We all change every day. As I experience a day, I learn new things and I see things differently. Many inanimate objects seem to me to be the same even though every atom is different every instant. A person is more than just the matter that makes up the person, so it gets more complex.

I expect never to know anyone well enough that I'd never be surprised. I knew my daughter by the time she left home much better than I ever knew anyone else, but the news about her never ends. To know a partner that well takes a huge amount of time.

We often have a hard enough time knowing ourselves.

Tom

You will never know another person 'completely', you can't walk in their shoes and feel what they feel.  And often people intentionally keep things from you.  Actually I think it is impossible for someone to completely reveal themselves to you.  It would be like giving yourself away.