Aristotle would say yes, man does have an essence.

I don't consider it a tautology. Care is not a synonym for "emotionally invested..."

Nonetheless I do appreciate criticism.

Now I'm confused. To be clear—

"You think I'd give it away for free?" :by this I obviously mean sex, no emotional connection whatsoever.
"Marriage is a wonderful institution" :by this I mean marriage including sex and an emotional level. However, I was being a tad sarcastic, as I never want to get married- though I do adore men.

Still creepy?

The immortal can live immorally. No karma/judgement—ever.

Thanks for having "my back." I don't see how that's creepy.

I too am a theist. You think I'd give it away for free? Marriage is a wonderful institution.

Ha.

I said to myself I wouldn't reply to this thread, but it was too seductive.

Simply stated: As a young woman myself— I like being dominated by a powerful male—this only applies in the the sexual arena. Goodness, men over 50 are fantastically libidinous creatures.
Unfortunately, when it comes to intellectual capacity I have quite the time finding a man who is actually properly educated. It also seems that once I tell a gentleman my academic status they aren't interested. When will they learn that intelligence is horribly sexy.

Kant—goodness yes. Someone today whose corporeal manifestation would be that of a paunchy, balding man, eternally sixty years old, often seen in his yard, cleaning out his gutters or basement wells or tending his garden joylessly. I feel that he'd be wearing an awkward straw hat of sorts, too-tight khaki shorts that reveal the topography of his crumpled underpants as he stoops to slake the thirst of his prize-winning orchids. Oh and stockings, most certainly. He would have those long ones, the ones you have to strap up onto your calves with elastic bands to keep in place. But look at the bright side, he didn't flirt with the ladies in such a manner that would lead to horizontal exercise—no arthritis.

What was it you wanted to know again...ah yes! Is he worth studying in this deplorable day and age. I give a resounding "yes" to that. His categorical imperative alone is a reason people owe attention to such a figure. What I find horrid is that his contemporaries didn't appreciate his work, thought it had no value. Granted, it can be hard to understand Kant, especially if you read a translation instead of the original German, but there are always more confusing philosophers out there. Just look at Hegel.

It's always good to try new things. Therefore I agree with you on experiencing things outside my comfort zone. However, this band/artist just really doesn't appeal to me. The noise (what we can define as "music" is a whole different thread) of this artist is monotonous, hardly any change in measure, and vocals that sound like the dying screams of a Tarsier. Yet again, you redeem yourself by Debussy. Music can most certainly have beauty within. Have you listened to Aida?...Turandot? Absolutely magnificent. Heavy metal...perhaps you're a young dude under 30, a characteristic of which you cannot redeem yourself.
Now, in regards to an earlier comment you made, to me pleasant ≠ beautiful. However, I feel that word beautiful does include a tangible slice of pleasantness, it encapsulates it in a way, but supersedes it most definitely.

"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."
—Nathan Hale

That song you posted, "He was beautiful." Goodness, I am an avid music lover, but I'd never heard it. It is exquisite, or rather—beautiful. But why? Noble Dust's post of the song "Heir apparent" is not pleasant—at all—to me. However he makes up for it with Mondrian.

I object to your statement—partially. Consider the most extravagant form of rationality and logic—mathematics. Once you've taken a few courses, you should feel confident in your ability to complete problems associated with what you have studied. Let me make this more clear, take this example: 5x + 2 = 22. After taking algebra, you will know how to solve this problem (x = 4). Even if it's your first time seeing the problem. Therefore, even though you had to be instructed on how to solve problems of a similar format before you could solve the one above, you still knew you had enough knowledge to complete it.
Although if we consider my stance in a different angle, perhaps taking a math test, you don't know (you shouldn't at least, if you're a good person) the questions that will be on the exam until you've taken it. Therefore you have to take the exam to test your knowledge.

Subject-based.

Classical work I feel holds it's reverence just because it's so original. Even now, what we consider "classical" or "the classics" might not have been referred to as such a hundred years ago. It's not just our generation that believes these works (Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Aristotle) to be the best, what we should strive for, in the Renaissance they certainly (much more fervidly than now) looked back to "antiquity" for their exceptional work.

I think there is value to honesty if you believe in mortality. Because if you are able to distinguish between right and wrong, lying should not be a tool of yours. The flip side is that if you believe that once you die you disappear into nothingness, why not lie? Morality would not have a say on your "afterlife" destiny.

Without government, society falls into chaos. Government enables structure and organization of resources. Frankly I like the concept of a laissez faire government rather than the "idyllic" communist government. Bah! But look how I'm slowly moving into politics, shame on me. I digress.
Aristotle's Politics would be an excellent source for further insight into this sort of question, or you could refer to Moore and his Utopia for some fun.

"There are no facts, only interpretations"
-Nietzsche

I don't agree with panpsychism. Inanimate objects don't have consciousness, it would even be a leap to say that they have self-awareness. Of course one could always compromise and say that there is different degrees of consciousness-but I feel that's too messy. As far as the components of matter are concerned, I still have a difficult time agreeing that they have consciousness- for example, electrons that surround an atom stay a certain distance away from one another- should we attribute this to consciousness? I don't think so. Because since (according to physics) matter is neither created nor destroyed, it would imply that these atoms have eternal consciousness, which I don't think is possible.

I would be keen to fall back on Augustine's three necessities for being human (and therefore being superior): I exist, I'm alive, and most importantly I possess reason (and a soul!). Animals have the first two out of the three. Also, in terms of "winning the lottery" what do you believe when it comes to the soul? If you think that souls are just waiting to fill empty voids when humans conceive, then you have not won the lottery- a slot has been filled- since animals can't possess souls. Therefore you were destined to become a human and it isn't entropy.

Conclusion: I think you can have your cake and eat it too: animals don't possess minds in the degree that we do, but at the same time, it wasn't a happy accident that you took human form.