Posts by Nicholas Alvarez

frozenskipper12 said:I really ought to give it another watch; I found it a bit banal when I first saw it. I’d probably just dismiss it with that tired old critique of being "too Hollywood."

But that’s precisely the thing—the movie has to feel "too Hollywood" when you hold it up against something like >. The protagonist undergoes this total, visceral revolt within the span of a single day, leaving the director absolutely no room for any sort of artistic meandering.
Personally, I actually find it superior to >; its directness is unavoidable because it simply doesn't have any other choice.

casualdriver9 said:Alice in Chains : Junkhead ( drug of choice, Real Thing, We Die Young, Godsmack

🙏 🙏 🙏

Junkhead
.
.
I can't say for certain if they were written while under the influence, though I find myself feeling them quite stimulative—every single track on Massive Attack - Mezzanine, of course...

Nicholas Alvarez said:Fine. We aren't talking about the same thing. It's true, people say eyes are the windows to the soul, but we are discussing words, not glances. Verbally—for heaven's sake, verbally! You can just as easily toss a glance into the same category as sex. And on that point, we should be able to agree.
The question is: Is it actually possible to describe something as mercurial as emotion using nothing but words without letting a sliver (mind you, a very fine sliver) of contempt leak in, simply because you feel you haven't quite captured what you intended to say, or perhaps because your expression betrayed you? To return once more to the subject of sex 🤷—my girlfriend and I have sex, and afterward we cuddle and show affection, which is wonderful; it’s how we express love through physical connection. But then, I blurt out "I love you," and more often than not, those words feel utterly inadequate. There is something more profound at play, something expressed physically. Like this: 🙂only without the heart.
Consider another instance: when you tell someone you love them for the first time, and your plea receives a positive response, leaving you elated and under the impression that your beloved is equally happy (let's assume she's beaming). Is it because she looked up the definition of "I love you" in a dictionary to confirm it means expressing affection, or was it because she sensed that tiny grain of shyness in you, or saw how you stood there all stiff and awkward from sheer terror, which she found absolutely precious or whatever? Clearly, those words didn't mean much more to you than a simple declaration of love, because you acted like a complete amateur.
There is always something more significant than the words themselves. On that, we are in agreement.

Actually, looking back at this now, writing at six in the morning 😲 makes me realize I'm not entirely sure what I was rambling about myself. When Nietzsche spoke of the act of speech, did he intend to encompass every component of that act—including non-verbal cues—or was he strictly referring to semantics in the narrowest sense?
My intention was the former. I was responding specifically to your question regarding romantic communication.
I find little solace other than Wittgenstein 1. and the collective power of every love poem written since the dawn of time.
Anyway, good night to the whole crew. ☕

Brenda Cooper3 said:Honestly, I was just reflecting on how I sometimes feel when I try to be funny... just a bit out of place, you know?
I apologize if my response came off as hurtful.

Listen, you have such a kind soul; please don't think for a second that this is a reflection of who you are.😍

Kevin Chavez3 said:If you wanted to see what real metal should actually look like, you could have caught Slayer performing in a small town outside of Austin this past Monday. Fortunately, metal is still capable of being that intense, rather than sounding like Metallica. ☕

☕

brisktiger56 said:Look, speech is just one tool in the communication toolbox. Every medium has its limitations—spoken sentences definitely included—but... I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that they're somehow unworthy of expressing love. Someone who actually loves someone with their whole heart isn't going to deliver those words like a dry, lifeless forum post; it’s going to be wrapped up in tone, intensity, eye contact, touch, and then maybe a kiss...

All of that matters, obviously, and it doesn't diminish what the person is actually feeling. Honestly, I'm more curious about which specific part of that verbal exchange is supposed to contain that tiny speck of contempt that this guy Nietzsche keeps bringing up.

Fine. We aren't talking about the same thing. It's true, people say eyes are the windows to the soul, but we are discussing words, not glances. Verbally—for heaven's sake, verbally! You can just as easily toss a glance into the same category as sex. And on that point, we should be able to agree.
The question is: Is it actually possible to describe something as mercurial as emotion using nothing but words without letting a sliver (mind you, a very fine sliver) of contempt leak in, simply because you feel you haven't quite captured what you intended to say, or perhaps because your expression betrayed you? To return once more to the subject of sex 🤷—my girlfriend and I have sex, and afterward we cuddle and show affection, which is wonderful; it’s how we express love through physical connection. But then, I blurt out "I love you," and more often than not, those words feel utterly inadequate. There is something more profound at play, something expressed physically. Like this: 🙂only without the heart.
Consider another instance: when you tell someone you love them for the first time, and your plea receives a positive response, leaving you elated and under the impression that your beloved is equally happy (let's assume she's beaming). Is it because she looked up the definition of "I love you" in a dictionary to confirm it means expressing affection, or was it because she sensed that tiny grain of shyness in you, or saw how you stood there all stiff and awkward from sheer terror, which she found absolutely precious or whatever? Clearly, those words didn't mean much more to you than a simple declaration of love, because you acted like a complete amateur.
There is always something more significant than the words themselves. On that, we are in agreement.

brisktiger56 said:I wrote: Can you give me an example of what you're actually talking about in your post?

Still waiting on that example, by the way...

And what about lovers? You know, when a guy or girl tells their partner... "I love you, you make me a better person, you bring out the absolute best in me... I just adore you..."

How much contempt is actually hiding inside those sentences ☕?

I suppose I should offer a brief apology to those of you who have been waiting around for me to resurface; it seems I haven’t exactly had the luxury of time to make a proper appearance on the forum lately.
You know, you don't actually express love through raw emotion; you do it through language. A feeling itself is boundless—it has no edges, no defined borders. A word, however, acts as a frame. It is the perimeter we use to attempt to capture something that is constantly spilling over the sides of the circle we try to draw around it.
Non-verbal communication isn't actually verbal. If you think about it, sex might be the only true way to express love because it involves the body—or, if you’re the type to believe in a soul, at least something tethered to the physical realm since it triggers those visceral, bodily reactions (don't ask me to explain the mechanics of that). It’s all expressed through the flesh, which belongs to the same category. And frankly, sex is a fundamentally irregular thing. I’m not entirely sure how else to put this, but have you ever truly had sex twice in exactly the same way?
In comparison to that, simply uttering the phrase "I love you" feels like a profound understatement of the actual emotion. You find yourself repeating the exact same words, yet the feeling behind them is constantly shifting, never static. It’s much like intimacy itself; you might follow a familiar rhythm, performing the same basic acts, but the experience is always fundamentally different—sometimes better, sometimes worse. It all fluctuates based on those microscopic shifts in devotion, or perhaps a sudden flicker of jealousy, or even just the subtle presence or absence of someone else entirely.

Metallica is what metal is supposed to be. Just raw, unapologetically heavy riffs without all the theatrical nonsense.
After Nirvana, they’re easily the greatest metal band to ever exist...

But I have a confession to make. I actually love Nine Inch Nails. What am I supposed to do about that? 🤷
At least I know they don't belong in a thread dedicated to Metallica.
Fine, I brought them up, but only to irritate you all with a tedious truth. Yes, I love Nine Inch Nails, so in the meantime, I think I'll just pause Outliers halfway through a track and put on some idiot, haha :2up:

By the way, Sandstorm anyone?

Ethan Johnson16 said:👍
The issue is grasping how language actually works. Once you realize what Certau meant by "Course," you see that honesty doesn't exist—not at least in the way people think is "natural."

Precisely. I mean, just look at the quote in my signature; it’s originally Faulkner's. And then there’s that Nietzschean line from Twilight: "That for which we have words is something that has already died in our hearts. In the very act of speech, there is always a grain of contempt." I suspect he was also hinting at a certain disdain for others, because if someone truly understands what we are saying, opening one's soul becomes a futile exercise. We aren't actually being vulnerable; we are merely rationalizing things irrationally, even to ourselves. It follows logically from that first part of the quote—we simply cannot capture in words those fleeting moments where something rises, falls, blurs, or flashes within the soul. Any semblance of what we call "feeling"—it all escapes us.

Nicholas Alvarez said:On point 1: Absolutely. We’re all a bit pathetic in our own way.
Point 2: I'm with you there.
Point 3: I have to disagree. One should never show pity. Pity only feeds their delusions of grandeur. Instead, we ought to demonstrate that we are just as flawed as they are, judging them—and ourselves—with equal, unrelenting ruthlessness.
Points 4 and 5: Escaping from one's problems isn't a permanent fix, though a brief reprieve is certainly beneficial. I agree.

Regarding point three: Pity inherently implies a sense of superiority, which is the last thing anyone needs.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Honestly, based on what you wrote... you should probably reach out for some professional help...

Just a few—maybe three, four, five—😬 little pieces of advice for you:

1. Stop telling yourself how much of a loser you are...
2. Nobody can actually hurt us unless we give them the green light to do so...
3. Insults and outbursts? They usually just come from someone with a really miserable, struggling soul—you shouldn't fear people like that or take their words to heart, you really shouldn't... instead, try to see what's actually going on inside them and just feel a bit of pity...
4. Try to get out there every single day for at least thirty minutes or an hour—maybe a walk or a quick bike ride through the neighborhood...
5. You might want to consider getting a pet, just something to look after and care for...

On point 1: Absolutely. We’re all a bit pathetic in our own way.
Point 2: I'm with you there.
Point 3: I have to disagree. One should never show pity. Pity only feeds their delusions of grandeur. Instead, we ought to demonstrate that we are just as flawed as they are, judging them—and ourselves—with equal, unrelenting ruthlessness.
Points 4 and 5: Escaping from one's problems isn't a permanent fix, though a brief reprieve is certainly beneficial. I agree.