"Essence" vs. "Accident" : Is this philosophy now redundant?
" When a property is classified as "essence," that means that this property is necessary either for the object's existence or, at the very least, the object's membership in some category. Think of "essence" as a property which is "essential." When a property is classified as "accident," that means that this property is not at all necessary. No matter how often this type of object has the property in question, the object can easily occur without that property. It may help to think of possession of such a property as "accidental." As an example, we can say that the essence of a mammal is to have warm blood, but having the property of a long neck is, for mammals, simply an accident. " http://atheism.about.com/library/glossar... But the "moderns"--anyone who came after Descartes--are not in agreement. "II. With the reaction against scholasticism, led on by Descartes, a new theory of the accident is devised, or rather the two extreme views of the Greeks referred to above are revived. Descartes, making quantity the very essence of matter, and thought the essence of spirit, denies all real distinction between substance and accident. While teaching an extreme dualism in psychology, his definition of substance, as independent being, gave occasion to Spinoza's monism, and accidents became still more deeply buried in substance. On the other hand substance seems at last to disappear with Locke, the world is resolved into a congeries of qualities (primary, or extension, and secondary, or sensible properties). The primary qualities, however, still retain a foundation in the objective order, but with Berkeley they become entirely subjectified; only the soul is allowed a substantial element as the support of psychical accidents. This element is likewise dissolved in the philosophy of Hume and the Associationists. Kant considered accidents to be simply subjective categories of sense and intellect, forms according to which the mind apprehends and judges of things — which things are, and must remain, unknowable. Spencer retains Kant's unknowable noumenon but admits phenomena to be its objective aspects or modifications." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.h...
"right" and "wrong" is a matter of opinion isn't it?
Yup "good" and "evil" "right" and "wrong" are all just perceptions. In reality they don't exist we give them meaning and judge others upon them based on what the majority thinks is right. Is it wrong to hate black people? well now the majority would say yes but this was not always the case same with gays. The majority hated them and that was considered "right" Also don't forget women are now seen as equal but that wasn't the case 50 years ago. peoples perceptions always change on what is right and wrong, good and evil there is no such constant thing.
A reconciliation of David Hume and Immanuel Kant?
I'm trying to find books, online journals, or whatever that, at some level, agrees with Hume on his challenge against knowledge, and strictly knowledge. I do not agree completely with him as to say all that we know is empirical, rather there is a flaw in our understanding (Kant) and that, in an infinite universe, there is no infinite/universal truth for the infinitesimal (Life/Humans). I am already referencing "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, but I just can't find anything else for the moment.
Liberalism? Conservative? What do these really mean?
Wow...good job! Pretty much sums it up and yeah...prepare to be attacked with namecalling. I'm sure they are on their way!