Fireshiru1

This is overly cogitated, but read on.
It may no make sense.
First we must evaluate logic distinct from love and all other intangible factors.
Throughout History:
Philosophic:
The embodiment of love through the meager confines of verbal rhetorical have all been expressed; thus exemplifying the lack of necessity for me to redound. It is the constant restatement of love devotions that keeps us from falling towards the other end of primal discrepancy.

LayMens:
If we don not strive for love, we deny the very essence of what makes us Human. Beasts and animals rely on their primal instincts to guide them to survive, but we have the luxury of love. We can choose to love, or we can choose not too.

The Big Three:
Philosophic:
Within life, three inconsistencies and radical variables arise: Hope, Faith, and Love. It is these illogical applicants that drives men from sanity. They plague, yet they respectively retain the other half, the ying of the yang to what makes us human. Intellect and Love is what essentially proves our humanity. The discrepancy between man, and beast.

LayMens:
The only way to truly be human is to accept the two gifts that are given to us. One is intelect, we must learn, the other is love. They are both Ying and Yang. Also, you cannot add logic to love, faith, or hope, and vice versa.

Concludingly, What is the meaning of life everyone asks? There is no meaning, that is the meaning. Just accept life. 99% of it is personal preference, or what you make of it. There is no right or wrong. It's all what you make of it.

If anyone rebukes, I'll be glad to debate.