Why does one feel so deeply those things that others seem to not feel at all, and, conversely, why do those things which cut others to the marrow easily glance from one’s skin? What makes this dichotomous relationship in the depth of emotion in similar beings? One who cries while the other laughs and one who stands fearlessly against the hordes of hell while another frees from angelic apparitions? What possible reasoning could be inferred from this diversity of personality? Should not that which instills response of one nature not always illicit that same response? Why should the same stimuli cause a person to scream in terror and a different person to laugh with glee?
Perhaps this dichotomy stems from the experiences that each individual brings into any encounter. One who has been bitten by a snake can not be expected to react the same to the creature as one who had never seen the slithering creature. But experience alone can not bridge that chasm between the two polar opposite responses. Nor can religion, education, training, or predetermination fully explore the predilection of ones psyche towards response.
I submit the following pontification of the dilemma. Perhaps these variances are no more than mere differences in perspective. That the differences between response to a catalyst is the viewpoint that the sum total of a persons life causes them to imbue to each stimulus of circumstance. That emotional response is more logical than given credit. Perchance then all of emotion can be borne on the shoulders of reason and insight. Or more likely emotional response is just that – emotion – and not subject to the vagaries of explanation.