This is all very deep... I hope you don't mind a response to this. I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, but reading all that made me want to share my own philosophy, I suppose.

Purpose, love, hate... linguistically, they're all nouns. Psychologically, they're what's called constructs: things that only exist within the person's mind. They have no physical existence, but almost any person will tell you that they are, in fact, there. In linguistic terms, again, a noun is defined as a person, place, thing, or idea; constructs, then, fit in the last category.

And yes, people are selfish; the vast, vast majority are, on some level. Another psychological principle refers to the 'heirarchy of needs'; first come basic bioligical necessities, then comfort and safety. After that are the desire for acceptance from other beings, followed by the need to approve of your own worth. Last is self-actualization, the need to do that one thing you were 'meant to do'.

Note, there isn't a single item in that list pertaining to providing for the needs of others; because, psychologically, a person is naturally much more interested in serving himself than his fellow man. However, psychology can't explain everything: if people watch out for their own needs first, then why do some donate money to humanitarian causes, give clothing to the poor, help people they don't even know, in far-flung places that they would otherwise never consider visiting? For some, it's simply for that need of acceptance, not wanting to be viewed as greedy or, yes, selfish. For others, though, it's deeper than that.

For those few people who have the ability to give, with no regard for their own needs: psychology would certainly consider them insane, if there was no other factor. But there's that simple rule, that so many schoolchildren are taught so early on: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule, as it's called.

Even that can still be considered selfish; but most children begin abandoning it soon after finding that no matter how well they treat others, they can and will still be mistreated and hurt. Those that continue following that rule, though, are the ones who realize that mistreating others in turn will simply lead to more strife.

Back to love and hate; both are ideas, constructs, abstract concepts within the mind, yet neither can truly exist without the other. Love is the opposite of hate, and hate the opposite of love. Neither would have any definition without the existence of the other.

True hatred is rarely, if ever, a good thing, but love and hate are simply not divided by one fine line; their being opposites means that there is a gradient of different feelings in between. Hatred for a person is truly one of the most powerful things to be done, but a mere 'dislike' for a person is healthy; if you have any issue with a person, this mild hatred encourages you to keep a distance from them, rather than inviting further conflict.

True love, on the other hand, is rarely a bad thing... by definition, that is. Hatred, on its own, is a word implying enmity, distaste and disgust; it can also include fear, depending on the reason for the hatred. Love, then, is simply the opposite: friendship, companionship, kindness.

If everyone treated one another with this definition of love, the world would surely be a peaceful place; of course, such global kindness is extraordinarily unlikely. However, the definition of 'love' has been twisted by man over time; the result is a love filled with trust for, generally, one other person, and riddled with distrust for the entire rest of the world.

True love has no downsides in and of itself, except that it cannot exist without coexisting with hatred. Mankind's love, though, brings with it possessiveness, greed, coveting, and restriction. This is because mankind has melded 'love' with 'marraige', which truly used to focus on value. In ancient times, when a man took a wife, he simply kidnapped her from her from her previous dwelling; as some level of decency developed, he paid the father for her instead. And even as the process continued to evolve and develop, it always retained that concept of greed: even when mutual, both sides of the joining are taking one another as possessions as well as partners.

In answer to the non-rhetorical questions you put forth, I have a few answers; for the heart becoming the symbol of love and emotion, think about just how long it's been that symbol. When you're struck with despair, where do you feel it? What about when you're delighted? Infuriated? The sensation always seems to be from the heart; the ancient Egyptians believed, due to this, that the heart was where emotions and thinking happened. They had no clue, on the other hand, what the brain was for, so it was removed when pharoahs were embalmed and mummified.

As for that last question, I believe both are truly unlikely to happen anytime in the near future; but as long as there's even the vaguest concept of love, friendship and comraderie between any two people among the billions in the world, the latter option cannot happen; and as long as anyone has even the slightest dislike for another human being, the former can never be. Does it really matter? If everyone cared for everyone, said caring would have no meaning. If everyone cared for only themselves, this, too, would be just mere matter of fact.

The contrast between them is what gives both states meaning. The contrast between success and failure is what gives life itself meaning for so many people. The contrast is what makes things interesting; if the world were clear-cut in one way or the other in either direction, life would be dreadfully bland and boring.

Well, it seems I may have gone on longer than you did... but, now I'm finished stating my own viewpoints. That last little comment you made really makes all the difference; if everyone would just care for someone, do their occasional little kind gestures... that, not an entire world of love and kindness, would be the way to improve everything.

But take care of yourself, too; balance is key. You can't care for others long if you allow yourself to waste away in the process.

Well said.

Wow, this is epic! You should post this as a freeverse poem!
Awww, now I wish I had an epic response... Err... *hugs tightly*

*hugs* That was just as epic.

Awww, you're just saying that. ^^

Life is what you make it, that's the ultimate answer and question. What do you make it? Then again, to me, there doesn't ever have to really be a definite answer.

We have to hate and we have to love. We're human, we're social creatures. We live off our feelings and emotions. If we deny them we deny a part of us that is human. But that also means we make mistakes. But we also get it right alot of times to. PArt of being human and having all this self awareness is being able to overcome ourselves to be who and what we want to be. If that's a machine of hate, or a heart of love, it's up to the individual.

We all further life no matter what we do and so long as we follow what we believe then you yourself are right. But I agree with you, we could all benefit from caring for another beyond ourselves BECAUSE we're social creatures. If we deny everyone in the world we deny a part of ourselves as well.

But we can't deny love either... yes it leaves you fragile... yes it leaves you open... but what's life without the risks? The reward is not as great if you don't take a leap of faith.

Life requires a bit of work at it. It requires balance as houndoomed sayed. I agree with him in many cases.

My philosophy: Live life. Be able to overcome any situation you're in and be able to rise above it, to think over it, to move on.

thanks for reading, just sorta my response, no argument thingy whatever meant ^^;

It's cool. No worries.

I think everything is possible, and you marl are more than on your way to achieving what you want, whether you know it or not. Thank you.