Zen

logic is perception. what you see and feel around you. how you decide what decisions to make and what would happen as a result. a lesser amount of logic would result in a lack of thought when it comes to making choices, usually being reckless and suffering consequences that were failed to be perceived by the individual. people with more logic are considered to be masterminds at planning, predicting, and acting accordingly. these figures are more likely to have a job where logic is needed; coordinating a military, formulating business decisions, and predicting future events, for example.

love is the feeling of needs. things like hunger, thirst, and other basic necessities are encompassed in this aspect. caring for others is also considered, which also supports one of the two major theories of human being (which I'll get to later). individuals with a lack of love are noted to fail to care for themselves; additionally, they seem to be more aggressive and have less care for other persons. people with more love are considered to be empathetic and have clear boundaries, which makes them a great worker in a team, while also recognizing the limits of themselves and other people. these figures are more likely to have a job where love is needed; caring for the elderly, motivating a group of people, or even therapy work.

lust is the wants and goals of every person. when you want something, whether it be physical or not, you are determined to get it. lust is widely considered to be unnecessary when it comes to actually surviving. however, lust is also the cause of the many little pleasures and luxuries that are in the world. eating is a human need, but lust is what causes us to have a preference for certain meals or a disdain for others. however, due to how much lust is oriented on the desires of the individual, it usually is considered an enemy to love, which is made to sacrifice an individual's own desires to support others, which contributes to the other. individuals with a lack of lust are considered unmotivated, and to a certain degree, slothful. people with more lust are considered determined, willful, and unmoving. these figures are more likely to have a job where lust is needed; reaching a set quota, pushing through long hours at work, or facing many setbacks and rejections.

both love and lust share a circular control with logic. both influence logic in what decision they should make, but logic decides if love and lust are going to be satisfied, or if they should in the first place.

people are classified as love-oriented or lust-oriented, or neither.

this diagram is commonly used to represent the three aspects of humanity. note the shape of triple dagger (⹋) marking through the eyes, heart, and groin, symbols of logic, love, and lust, respectively.

major theories about human being

humans are altruistic

humans are more likely to be love-oriented than lust-oriented. if you have two perfectly neutral-oriented individuals in a situation where they could either help others (love) or satisfy their own wants (lust), people are more likely to do the former.

humans are assumed to be pack animals, in which one person who failed to act upon love would result in consequences for the entire group. this theory states that early humans would recognize that love-oriented actions would be better in the long run. bringing food and finding shelter for yourself and a mate would increase the chances of surviving and passing on healthy offspring.

however, many don't believe this to be true. if humans really were more love-oriented, major conflicts in the past and present wouldn't occur, as everyone could live in harmony. as long as everyone is clothed, fed, and housed, there would be no point in ever fighting to gain more. as a result, a second theory has been growing and has now become mainstream.

humans are selfish

humans are more likely to be lust-oriented than love-oriented. if you have two perfectly neutral-oriented individuals in a situation where they could either help others (love) or satisfy their own wants (lust), people are more likely to do the latter.

humans are assumed to be self-centered individuals. humans only care about their own desires, to satisfy their own wants even at the expense of other people. if one person had more resources and opportunities than another, the one with the upper hand would rather stay that way than to sacrifice themselves to make themselves equal. humans only do things if it contributes to their own goals.

assuming the previous theory's assumption that humans are pack animals is true, then those that believe the opposite state that humans only care for others if it gets them what they want. it states that early humans only helped others just because it meant that they would also have some sort of benefit.

once again, many don't believe this is true. human survival depended almost entirely on others back then; if humans were really as divided and aloof as they say, then how would they ever progress and group up? how would clans be stable if everyone pulled against each other in opposite directions all the time? prehistoric societies would be dismantled almost instantly when met with any sort of challenge. and if it did, then how would we ever form entire villages, towns, cities, countries, etc.?