We all have emotions.
Immeasurable attachments and predispositions towards certain external stimulus that trigger differing amounts of chemical release inside our brains.
As we grow and change, these levels and stimuli change with us.
What was once a wonderful occasion can become a psychological nightmare.
We grow accustomed to new things, whatever appeals to our current needs and can be incorporated by our current interests and ideals.
But what of despair.
Of nihilistic distress, and existential devaluation.
Such concepts are never felt by most, at least not as more than a passing glimpse in times of temporal suffering.
For the select unlucky few, these emotionally-parasitic concepts can bring about total destruction of the self.
Without a future-proof identity, one can only wonder what the meaning of life truly is.
Could it be that emotions are simply the product of biological necessity?
Do we feel purely to enhance/enable the attraction of a mate, and the procreation of our species, or do they possess greater meaning?
Some may say that emotions are simpler, more basal things, limited to happiness, anger, sadness and the like, and perhaps concepts such as existentialism are unrelated, psychological hang-ups that may induce emotional response.
But i beg to differ.
Feelings are a natural first-response to social stimulus, and external stimulus of many varieties. If the first response to stimulus is to ask ‘Why?’ without feeling, can it infact be considered an emotional response of sorts?
Clinically, it would be considered psychopathy, or sociopathy in a human context.
The real consideration here is that, if a large enough percentage of people (over 1% of total population seems fair to consider it a measurable anomaly) have a ‘psychopathic’ response to stimuli, can it be considered a ‘textbook’ response, and if so, is it relatively normal?
Crazy is as crazy does i suppose.