Why can they be so contextually different based on our emotional responses and the meaning they create.  

The true nature of reality has been long debated by many great philosophers. An Idealist would probably argue that the meaning imposed onto an experienced reality or even the reality itself is created or at the very least greatly enhanced in the imagination of the observers mind. In this case it could be accepted that it's thoughts and consciousness that shape the fabric of the world that we all individually choosing to experience.

The realists on the other hand, would have us believe that reality exists independently of human cognition. How then would they know? If a realist can measure good from bad then they must have a formula or framework that defines reality? This I'm picking would have to be a complex interplay of moral judgments, philosophical beliefs, ethical principles, psychological insights, and culturally accepted parameters. So are 'they' real? Hopefully reality realises and accepts this also?

Then there is the Mystical, though best we maybe leave that for a little bit later.

It's my personal belief, to effectively engage with, understand and interact with reality, requires all of the above. Tangible physical things exist for sure without human cognition but they have no meaning. Experiences with powerful and impactful meaning also very much exist despite having no tangible physical substance.