Any tips and advice for managing anger? — healing-anger

Philosophical problems can make people angrier than we initially think. Psychology plays a role but does philosophy and psychology not overlap and mingle in some areas? Someone's philosophy and understanding of the world can definitely contribute to their overall anger with people and many other things in this world. So, in my opinion, reading philosophy, especially philosophy that helps explain or tackles problems that have always bothered you, can definitely be a start.

Any tips and advice for managing anger? I know briefly about Stoicism, can anybody elaborate? — healing-anger

From my own experience, Stoicism did not help. But reading existential philosophers helped me a lot. Reading Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and others helped me wholly understand and reconcile my confusion about this absurd world and the absurd humans that inhabit it. Most of my anger has always come from not being able to understand the world, and not being able to understand our species. But this is just what helped me and my 2 cents. I am not proclaiming that this is the answer.

The justification of public education is that high school education is required for a good life. — Rex

I find it interesting that people justify high school education as a requirement for a good life. I don't think it is necessary at all. It may be sufficient for some or a part of a combination of sufficient conditions, but I've met some people who didn't finish high school and proclaim that they have a good life. I have also met people who precisely state that high school was the worst part of their life and that college, elementary school, and other aspects made their life much better than if they had just stopped at high school.

What is interesting to me is that people justify many things for the requirements of a 'good life.' However, the more requirements, like someone having a 'public high school education' is an act in itself that makes someone more prone to having a 'bad life' in their own perception. In other words, they pack on a list of requirements that they themselves think makes a 'good life,' and then if they didn't have these requirements, they don't yet have a 'good life.' Another possibility is that more fortunate folks proclaim that if they didn't have the best forms of these requirements of a 'good life' then they too don't have a 'good life.' But action in these ways, in my opinion, makes these people absolutely miserable. What constitutes a 'good life' should be a much smaller list. Or does a 'good life' even require a list?

If there is such a thing as a 'good life' and a list of requirements for such a thing, then having proper health care should probably be the first thing on the list. Not having proper health can lead to many other activities being spoiled. It can also lead to depression, anxiety, as well as boredom of not being able to do certain things in which one wants to do. So, if we use the 'good life' thought experiment in arguments against people that are against public healthcare for people in need, then appears to me to be pretty good so far. But this is all just my 2 cents on the matter.

The universal basic income is better. — Rex

I think some sort of basic public healthcare is better. Reasons? First, a universal basic income might actually worsen the problem. If someone is given money, it probably won't be enough to cover healthcare expenses, thereby forcing the person to still need proper care. Second, it might strengthen the pro-private health care case. If people are granted money, why should we have both universal basic income and public healthcare? Seems like printing money and overspending would occur from the government(s). Therefore, this would bolster the pro-private healthcare people's argument further--in terms of spending and proper fiscal/monetary management in the government. Third, universal basic income, while it is a good idea in principle, may be hard to control in reality. I'm not against it, but there needs to be a clear plan against some of these insurance companies jacking up prices on people. Therefore, I think basic healthcare should be the priority first, then universal basic income might be able to come into the mix of policies down the road.

Anyhow, thanks for the interesting post mate. I love to discuss and think about these topics. Cheers!

This is a consistency argument. To be consistent, any state that provides public education ought to also provide a universal basic income or government-subsidized health care. — Rex

What I find interesting is that there are food banks, public education, and assistance programs, but, to my knowledge, not many effective healthcare assistance programs. If public education is a right, shouldn't some form of public healthcare be a right? I've heard this argument many times. After pondering on it, I feel as it is a pretty good one. The problem lies in the principle of people believing whether health care is a right or a privilege. The people against healthcare to be a right seem to not support helping someone on the street who has been stabbed or a person who is injured from a car accident. Also, public assistance programs should include drug rehabilitation, mental illness help, etc. If there are working people in society, who are less fortunate and can't afford these services, how are they expected to perform work? How are they supposed to be functioning members of society?

To add to the ideas aforementioned, I think we should focus on the 'function' principle as well. You shouldn't expect people to 'function' in society if they can't have some sort of basic healthcare assistance. Health is more important than work. Health is also more important than education. So why isn't this granted?

From what I remember studying realism in college, ‘off-shore’ foreign policy involvement would be using measures such as diplomacy, drone strikes, sanctions, strategic agreements, using international relations institutions for influencing a certain region. It is ‘off-shore‘ because it is simply directed from leadership offices and agreements, not warfare—on-shore involvement.

To answer your question about whether I think neo-realists and textbook realists are on the same page ideologically, I would say kind of, and that it depends on which country they belong to. I would say China and Russia would be textbook realists. Agreements don’t matter, as long as they are increasing their power and influence in the world, all else is fair game. But, for the U.S., I would say they are more neo-realists who understand the value of agreements, compromise, and using institutions to influence certain areas in the world.

What this post reminds me of is The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus and his general view on how absurd human existence really is. Correct me if I am wrong, I am paraphrasing here, but if I remember correctly, Camus illustrates that the relationship between The Human and The Universe in life is absurd. Contrary to what politicians spout on stage, we cannot actually control anything. We can't even completely control our own lives. So, what shall we do? The Universe is pitted against us sometimes, yet it is also favorable to us sometimes. The world is favorable to us sometimes, yet it is also pitted against humanity at some points. There is nothing we can do about these facts. And yet at the same time, The Human is constantly striving for clarity, explanation, and control in one's life. In my opinion, this is what people need to think about and accept. Once people accept this, I believe it can temporarily calm down or even slightly decrease certain disputes or entanglements over certain things. But this view is definitely not a panacea for The Human Condition...Sometimes it makes it even worse for some.

In my opinion, that should not be considered a side quest. That is the quest, and far too few people take it seriously. Imagine if literally, everyone took seriously the responsibility for making their own little sphere of influence better than it already is. That's where we should all start. — Theorem

This is a wonderful reply. I believe in this same view of The Human Condition. Humans have their own spheres, their own lives. What can they do? They can choose to make it worse, make it better, or remain to stagnate. There is also the notion of perception and interpretation of one's life. You may not be in control of circumstances in your life or things happening to you, but you do have some control over your interpretation, perception, and degree of acceptance of these things. Unfortunately, some humans do not view life through this lens, think everyone is out to get them, and/or have irrational illusions about their own lives that they don't want to break. But this is also a part of The Human Condition...

Truth is what we’re missing. Objective truth I believe. Imagine yourself above the Universe looking down. You are in nothing, looking at existence, and you see everything clearly. — Maya

I don't know if this is the case, but my gut thinks this probably will not work either. Human beings are contradictory due to 'good' and 'bad' impulses. Although objective truth may provide some clarity and block certain disagreements and entanglements among peoples, I don't believe it will have much effect in throwing further disagreements, entanglements, conflicts amongst nations, dissent, unrest, etc. Also, even if there was objective truth, we have seen that many people don't want to accept it because their illusions--that they happen to love and live in--would be destroyed (referencing an insight here for Friedrich Nietzsche). For instance, someone may be raised far from any interaction or knowledge of gun violence. Their parents may console them and censor them from this kind of behavior in the world. If we suppose this hypothetical child is blocked off from the news and friends, when the child grows up and eventually moves out, she may learn of gun violence, police brutality, and school shootings. Now this person has to destroy the illusion that her parents help create within her and go against her own prior knowledge and experience of the world. She may react with acceptance, denial, or a little bit of both. Yet the objective truth of these atrocities being real still remains...Therefore, as we can see, it is possible for objective truths to exist and people having the choice to believe them or reject them based on their own impulse, emotion, experience, and thoughts.

Interesting post. I have often had the same rant and train of thought when pondering deeply about The Human Condition and The Human Existence. Why are we all so contradictory?

110 billion humans and no one has figured out how to convince people to get along? How to not be a fucking douchebag? I mean that's fucking incredible. — Lif3r

In response to this quote, I think one must analyze what drives people to not get along. Oftentimes, I think what drives people to disagreement is the means of doing something. The point of disagreement-- from observation of antiquity as well as present time, whether it be in interpersonal interaction, political interaction, wartime interaction, it is often based on one person wanting to do something a certain way that is contentious or in direct opposition to another person's means for doing something a certain way.

Another reason why I think humans can't get along and will not get along for our entire life is that it is boring. Whether one accepts this fact about The Human Condition or not, humans hate boredom. Time and time again, we see individuals breaking boredom even if it is wrecking the peace, contentious toward another, or even violent behavior. The human mind does not succumb to boredom. There will always be internal or external strife with peace and boredom. For instance, taking a gander at some modern-day dating habits in the U.S. is sufficient to see this kind of breaking with boredom or peace. Some people argue for fun or poke fun at their partners. Some people are abusive to others. Some people cheat on others. Some people lead multiple women. Some people lead multiple men at the same time. Plus, we have all heard the story of the 'nice guy' or 'nice girl' being cheating on, ghosted, or dumped for no clear reason. And in many of these scenarios, there is often no clear reason for this behavior other than the fact that these people are bored or have mental issues. Whether or not one causes the other is aside from the point, and due for another discussion. But this is just one area where I find it clear that humans hate boredom, and it even affects their own dating lives.

You might say remove the bad person from the scenario and it will be solved, but we often don't know who the bad person even is. It might even be the ones responsible for removing the badness. — Lif3r

In response to this quote, I have the view that every human being is capable of being 'bad' in the moral sense. I believe everyone has some qualities of both 'good' and 'evil,' yet our actions are always wavering on a scale between the two opposites sides of morality. We are never fully 'good' or fully 'evil.' And the same goes for our actions. So removing bad people will never fix the problem. All humans, as we've seen, can be 'bad,' and create problems within society amongst each other.

You might say add the fortitude to protect the individual from badness, but what fortitude? Where? Can we cover all bases at once when those who will make it their life to manipulate will continue to find ways of doing so regardless of parameters? — Lif3r

I believe humans can try their best to protect or build walls to prevent others from acting 'bad.' However, we can only try and prevent so much.

Anyhow, thanks for the post. The Human Condition is one of my favorite topics to discuss because it is so captivating to talk about with others. Cheers!

Hello, I am new to the site. I can only imagine there was probably someone or something that broke the rules or maybe it was deleted for some other reason. The 2003 Iraq War is surely an interesting one to discuss, however. Cheers!

Political Realism understands that exercising power can be a dirty business, but is nonetheless necessary. A realistic politician understand that he will get his or her hands dirty in the process, even when doing good. — Bitter Crank

This quote reminds me of The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli. To be a 'good' leader--in the effective sense--one must recognize that power is everything, and that to properly exercise, maintain, and gain power, one must act in certain ways others would not approve of.

I think we need to be careful not to conflate American exceptionalism with political realism. — BitconnectCarlos

In my opinion, it is often erroneously conflated due to some new 'realists' in academia proclaim that we operate in the realist camp of foreign policy from off-shore influence. This is the idea that the U.S. should remain somewhat isolated and try to influence, contain, and exert power on other nations while remaining 'off-shore.' But many UN memos and policies are usually just aimed at conflating realism and American exceptionalism to justify instituting democratic institutions across the world.

Another quote I loved from your post:

A political realist wouldn't recognize the US as being inherently different from other nations though and for the realist the correct lenses through which to view the international order is power. The US is just one source (although a large one) of power among many. — BitconnectCarlos

This is exactly right. Power is what determines a realist's course of action. The world is a chessboard, and the nations that are playing the game are concerned with power and power alone. Cheers!

The Past is definitely an interesting concept to ponder about. Coming from a background in history, I find concepts of the Past as extremely captivating.

While it is true that we are influenced so much by the past I think that it is easy to become a victim of it. The experience we have do affect us so much on a subconscious level as to be able to destroy us if we allow it. — Jack Cummins

I love this point. The reason? Because it is a succinct, subtle, and important lesson to learn in life. Every human has good and bad experiences. And these experiences, if we let them, can haunt our minds like you have pointed out. But, the lesson here, in my opinion, comes from Nietzsche's points about embracing one's life and situations, rising above them--aka not letting them trap/hinder us, and moving forward. If we proceed in this fashion, a person can develop, grow, and become stronger. The person can now ascend and do their best to not look back or cling on to 'good' times. This kind of thinking is detrimental to one's life, thus making this lesson extremely important for every individual.

Thanks for sharing your post. I loved it. Cheers!

Perhaps you are experiencing a delusion right now. If you met God, how would you know it wasn’t a delusion? You would need to have faith in your experience or faith in yourself. — praxis

I've heard this point a lot in 'faith' arguments. I see where you are coming from. However, what I find most interesting is how do we know that our lives aren't just a delusion? How do we know we are not dreaming? What if death is the passage of 'waking up' from this state of delirium called life?

People use this point to counter arguments for God or faith in God, but I think taking this position calls forth questioning faith in life at all. There have been moments in my life where I have stopped in my tracks and have pondered about how insane life is. People wake up, go to work, work tirelessly for this thing called 'money,' use this money to buy things, then go home to sleep. People also wonder about arguing people on concepts and associations of things in life. Sometimes people go to war over resources. Sometimes people bomb things to prove a point. It is absurd, to say the least--referencing Albert Camus here. What I am trying to get at is the fact that life to an outsider would seem just like a dream. Dreams are bizarre, but so is life, and just about every part of it if you really ponder about how odd it really is.

To get to the point, it appears taking this position as a counter to people that defend their faith in God, religion, or something higher than just human mammals walking around till we die, in my opinion, this counter is not the most effective method in arguing against people of faith in religion/God. I think a better question is to ask: what leads people to believe or have faith in the existence of God? What leads people to be so ardently obedient to God? (referencing the Abraham example here). Are we programmed to believe or reject faith in God? Is there a possibility that certain events can trigger one into this state, and is it designed this way on purpose from a supernatural force or not? I find these questions very interesting when it comes to faith.

Anyhow, thanks for this awesome post. I love thinking about the delusion premise/argument about faith and life in general. Cheers!

Love Nietzsche, can't stop reading him...

Thank you. You couldn't have put it any better here:

Information is incredibly easy to find these days (arguably too easy), but at the same time I find a lot of critical thinking to be at an all time low. — Albero

Thank you for the wonderful reply. Power and its dynamics in politics is definitely the main issue.

Thank you, appreciate it!

I suppose I'm using "respect" as "uphold the validity" of the vote. Now if you personally disrespect a person because of what they vote for, that's perfectly fine. But if you're asking if we should forbid or discount votes that are allowed by the government, but that we personally disagree with, I disagree. Does it make sense where I'm coming from? — Philosophim

Ah, now I see where you are coming from. Thanks for the well-thought answer to my question! It is much appreciated. I love a great discussion on these topics.

I think I was coming from the angle of the individual, peer-to-peer kind of perspective in terms of 'should we respect other peoples vote to suppress/take away other peoples right to vote,' instead of thinking about it through a 'respect' lens of government. So, thanks for clarifying. It is surely an interesting topic that is often brought up at my dinner table. Cheers!

It depends on the limitations of the government. If the government forbids this, then no. If the government allows this, then yes. — Philosophim

Government forbidding or not, what does this have to do with people respecting other peoples exercising their right to vote to suppress other people's rights to vote? Not trying to be hostile, just curious about this answer.

So. What do you guys think? — Outlander

Physical prison as it can lead to mental prison later in life or during a sentence. Moreover, it can make a person mentally worse off than they already were. From what I have read and heard, physical prisons can lead to trauma, violence, exposure to corruption, and mental instability. At least in a mental prison, you may be able to avoid some of these darker experiences.

Why is jail the best way to solve the social problem of the criminal? What is the criminal's genesis? — JerseyFlight

Jail is not the best way. It seems to me that jail or throwing 'bad' humans in society into cages arose from temporary circumstances - prisoners of war, slaves, offenders of crimes, etc. back in ancient times. No one thought of a better way of punishing people, other than death, so they resorted to the dark means of incarcerating people and stripping their ties to society?

I do not know the history of jail or the origins of incarceration as a means to deal with offenders of crimes in society. But, in my opinion, it is one of the worst ways to deal with people who have committed injustices, and it disgusts me. One way to look at how crime arises is how Outlander put it:

Depends. Sometimes out of necessity, perceived or otherwise. Other times out of greed, frustration, lack of self control, mental illness, or just good ol' fashioned indifference. Usually a bit of all. — Outlander

When one looks at how crime arises through this, realistic, lens, then it becomes easier to see how jail is probably the worst way to deal with humans who commit crimes. People commit crimes for the above various aforementioned reasons, and/or a mixture of them all. There is no one 'true' and 'absolute' answer, and there will never be.

What society needs to do is start treating humans like humans, and not like animals we can just throw in a cage, judge, and forget about. For almost all crimes, except murder, rape, child molestation, etc., there is no justification, in my humble opinion, for jailing peoples. Dealing with more heinous crimes is a different topic for a different time as it is more complex, and I don't seem to have an answer or an opinion on it yet. But, for non-high violence crimes, jailing people just doesn't appear to help these individuals at all. If anything, statistics show that it leads to more exposure to violence inside of prisoners and an increased likelihood of people committing more crimes...So why keep this system? Why keep throwing people in there?

Obviously, there are economic reasons for state governments, private prisons, and the people that are employed at and by prisons, but this is not an excuse to keep this kind of punishment/penal system in place. Who cares about these peoples' jobs and economies? Isn't humanity and human treatment of fellow Americans more important?

Should we respect someone's right to vote if their motivations for voting are to take away the rights of others? — coolguy8472

It depends. Do you want pure democracy or not? Do you want equal opportunity across the board or not? Once there is a clear and established political system then you can proceed by answering the question.

For pure democracy, usually in favor of everyone having the right to vote, it is prudent to allow anyone to vote even if they intend to suppress other people's right to vote. For instance, if there is a candidate that is against the right to vote for felons in America, and there is also a candidate that wants to allow the right to vote for felons, people voting on this should not be policed or suppressed in any way, even though the people voting for the former candidate wants to suppress the right to vote for felons...Democratic governments, in principle, are for the people and representatives of the people. If the people of a democratic nation want to elect officials that will suppress the right to vote of other subsets of people, so be it. That is the name of the game in a democratic society. So, in terms of respect for these people, to answer your question, I think we should respect their ability and exercising their right to vote, even if their opinions are against our own. However, that doesn't necessarily mean we have to respect their questionable intentions or motivations to vote - like attempting to suppress or take away rights to vote for other peoples through elected officials whom they support.

Disclaimer: I think everyone other than children should have the right to vote - felons and all - in a democratic government. Policies affect everyone. So, everyone over the age of 18 should be able to vote.

Given today's climate, it's worth asking or re-awakening some basic philosophical questions about who and what we are as human beings, what a good life is, and what values we want to prioritize -- if for no other reason than informing our political decisions. — Xtrix

Agreed. However, since society, especially American capitalist society, has a heterogeneous demographic as a country, I believe that there is no clear answer to these questions. On top of this demographic makeup, we have people with different career interests, social interests, hobbies, activities, etc. At some point, and no matter what system we are under, there will be conflict amongst these different people in general. We see this all the time. For instance, you already pointed differences between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' in America, and how this contributes to the greater divided in wealth due to debt and other factors for the less fortunate. This is one of the many reasons I think it is vital to act on the notion that politics is a realm where we need to work with the best policies, systems, and leaders we can get. In other words, voting for the lesser of two evils in all scenarios. On top of that, we need to prioritize candidates and policies that are aligned with helping people. If the system is broken, which I believe in some areas it is, then we need to prioritize, demonstrate, motivate people to vote for officials that are aligned, and try our best to elect.

The problem I find interesting in general political philosophy is: attempting to control, eradicate, and block injustice. Yet injustice always persists in any nation, country, and local. There is always a group that is marginalized. There is always someone who is suffering. But this is not an excuse to not keep trying. The journey and ascendence to improve are what life is all about--Nietzsche's Will to Power comes to my mind here as well as Albert Camus's conclusion in The Myth of Sisyphus.

Anyhow, thanks for making this thread. Political philosophy is one of my favorite subjects to plumb the depths of. Cheers!

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Favorites:

Fyodor Dostoevsky
Friedrich Nietzsche
Niccoló Machiavelli
Plato
Albert Camus
Alexis de Tocqueville
Soren Kierkegaard
C.S. Lewis
Leo Tolstoy

Do you think it would be a good or bad idea to have these classes mandatory for let’s say, elementary school? How could this positively or negatively impact kids? — Albero

I think it would be a great idea. What's funny about this topic is that it is one I have run into in conversations with others on education and what children should learn at a young age. Just the other day, I was at the dinner table with family and I was the only proponent of the 'in favor' camp of making philosophy a mandatory part of grade school, middle school, and high school. The rest of the dinner table was against my position.

Some Reasons why I think it would be a great idea:

1. It would help children deal with the absurdity of the world. Contradictions, pain, suffering, and oddness of life can be eased by some of the material in philosophy for a child. Some people argue that this may confuse people more, especially those with a hyperactive mind, anxiety, depression, etc. While this negative possibility is possible, with proper instruction from teachers, school services--like counseling, tutors, social workers, and, of course, discussion with parents on these topics, in my opinion, a child is better equipped for their lives to come as well as the situations they will be dealing with as a child.

2. Compassion from adults-to-children and children-to-children will likely increase, for the most part. My premise for this statement/reason is when people are introduced to logic and the thought experiments that logically entails, it can make them more compassionate and understanding of why things are in the world, how people may endure what they do, etc. Most philosophy folks know that the mighty concepts of 'probability' and 'could' allow people to conceive that there are possibilities to almost anyone experience almost anything. In other words, it is possible that most people don't experience tragedy in the form of losing parents at a young age, but some people still experience this. About this particular example, when children are not having thought experiments on subjects like this when something happens to them that may involve pain, suffering, and unfortunate events, then they may be more inclined to react in a hostile or unhealthy way. In my opinion, just thinking about how these events could happen to people can increase that person's likelihood of becoming more compassionate and understanding of others.

3. Society will likely have more deep thinkers. Certain works and thinkers in the study of philosophy touch up on things that require a large amount of thought, reflection, and reading to get the most out of them. Unfortunately, since philosophy is not required, many people are not exposed to it. When many people are not exposed to something, likely, they will not take it up on their own. Instead, if philosophy and the subjects it touches upon are required, more people would be exposed. And when more people are exposed to thinking deeper on life and what it entails, there are likely more thinkers on these things.

Anyhow, these are just a couple of reasons and some explanations for the aforementioned reasons for why I think it would be prudent for students to be mandatorily exposed to philosophy in school. However, this is just my 2 cents on the matter. Thanks for making such an interesting discussion thread. I have thought about this topic for many years. Cheers!

When we feel anxiety we are on a path of fear that can lead to much greater evils. We may feel anxiety at first. Then we may try to control the fear by doing things and acting in ways that cause frustration when events don’t happen the way we thought we wanted. Then we might get angry or depressed. Anger at others or the world can lead to hate. Depression can lead to hating oneself. Hate leads to all kinds of evil acts. — Son of a Bitch

Wonderful thought here. I completely agree. Anxiety is just fear in another name, and if we do not confront or try to work through the fear the best we can, then an effortless and ignorant path one indeed goes down.

What are your thoughts about this? It seems almost as if the childlike care for others, parents, and such is sublimated into something profoundly repugnant. Why does this happen or what happens in such individuals who possess this trait of care or compassion? — Shawn

To answer your last two questions, I will do so based on my own experiences. I am not proclaiming certainty or absolute truth from my experiences. Just stating my opinion based on anecdotes from my own life. I will do so in this fashion because you asked the forum world what we think about these questions. Lastly, I am not trying to be completely rational, logical in my answers, just trying to ponder the questions based on what I have seen and felt about the subjects.

Based on observations of my own life, I think many individuals have resentment towards a childlike curiosity and display it in many forms. One of the forms being the fact that these individuals treat childlike curiosity, compassion, and care like some sort of 'sin' or wrongdoing. Perhaps the resentment stems from acknowledging their own existential situation themselves: that they have been given one life, one childhood, and one chance to 'live.' Perhaps there is a pain in their childhood, adolescence, and/or their current adult phase of life. If we suppose this is true for their minds, then the resentment is understandable to another person who is trying to 'care' for others or is worrisome over the pains and passions of their peers, friends, and family members. I say that this is a possibility because it may remind them that they were once a child with this respectful curiosity and compassion before their psyches were chipped at by suffering, pain, and the dark instances of immorality in the world. But these are all just possibilities, aren't they? For instance, throughout my childhood and my teenage years I always just wanted to be 'nice' to people and make everyone as 'happy' as possible. Didn't matter the scenario or event, I always tried the best I could to make this happen for the room. (I think this was the case because I understood at a very young age that we live and we die. There is a day we are born and a day we decease.) So, for me, this is how this compassion and care was birthed in my own mind, I guess. For others, it may be the same or something different. I can see how it would be either.

So, perhaps the 'explanation' for why this arises in children or persons in later stages of life is not obtainable for a philosopher, or perhaps it is. But there does appear to be true in the fact that children/people do experience this and there are harsh reactions from adults to this kind of compassion and curiosity. My opinion on whether or not there is an 'absolute,' overarching truth on 'why' it occurs in people is that there is no one answer, and I think human existence is set up this way on purpose.

But this is all just my 2 cents on the questions you brought up. Thank you for creating a wonderful discussion. I have thought about this for many years. Cheers!