What is anger
a volcano bubbling inside
threatening to explode
the fury of the sun?
...
Read full text
You sharply define ANGER and LOVE in the first two stanzas. There's no ambiguity - they are opposites. But it appears the ambiguity involves their embodiment in an individual human being. The sharp distinctions when defining abstract nouns doesn't work when you confront people in the flesh. It seems to me the sense of the poem goes: SO WHAT IS THIS? A MAN OF HATE OR A MAN OF LOVE? And the speaker cannot finally be certain of this individual's identity. That's what I'm reading in your poem.
yes, mankind (this includes women) has many emotions. but, though hate can be hand-in-hand with anger, it doesn't have to be. one can both love and be angry at the same time towards the same person or thing, but i'm not sure one can 'truly love' someone or something AND hate the object of love. my comment would be much easier for me to write if you'd ' left 'hate' out of it! bri :)