Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Yes. But we can only do so to the extent that these other animals come into our experience. So we are not going beyond it. We are merely extending it whenever we encounter new things.

Pretty serious list you got there. I haven't read a fifth of them and haven't heard of most of the others... Tells you something about how (un)seriously I approach philosophy myself.

I agree Hegel is a charlatan. I don't see how he would be worth reading - his prose is just too sloppy (on purpose of course, it's a way to hide his vacuity). I could only envisage reading him in order to debunk him. But his gravest sin IMO has been to create this fake persona of the thick-worded, convoluted philosopher whom nobody actually understands and who seems to be saying all sorts of absurdities but that's just because he's soooo deep, ya know? Since then, philosophy became an exercise in deceiving and and mocking the lay man. With exceptions of course.

I am new on this board and do find it shitty debate-wise, with many posters too immature, in spite of their grey hair, to actually discuss things honestly and fairly. Many people seem to be here to bitch about other people. But it ain't going to get better until good, sensible posters take a firmer foothold and sense of propriety. So please keep posting.

you don't need to read a whole lot of philosophy to not take philosophy seriously.

I go back and forth with Hegel, much like how I go back and forth with Heidegger. By the end of the day, I still think they're both full of hot air, especially Hegel (since he greatly contributed to Marx's thought, which I despise).

I can't tell you how many times I've tried to engage in debate, only to realize that people don't understand what debating involves. This forum is no different, and it is a pretty good example of bad debating. There are better sites, should you be interested. Here's one:

philosophyforums.com

Quote:

I go back and forth with Hegel, much like how I go back and forth with Heidegger. By the end of the day, I still think they're both full of hot air, especially Hegel (since he greatly contributed to Marx's thought, which I despise).

I find Marx's diagnosis of capitalism y and large okay, if a bit ballistic; it's the cure (communism) that wasn't that good.

Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
1.Wealth or income class 2.Mean household income 3.Mean household net worth 4.Mean household financial (non-home) wealth
......1............................2............ .........3.......................4
Top 1 percent.......... $1,318,200... $16,439,400..... $15,171,600
Top 20 percent....... $226,200.... $2,061,600....... $1,719,800
60th-80th %tile..... $72,000...... $216,900.......... $100,700
40th-60th %tile..... $41,700............ $61,000............ $12,200
Bottom 40%.......... $17,300.............-$10,600.......... -$14,800

Income inequality in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The distribution of income in the United States has been the subject of study by scholars and institutions. Data from a number of sources[1] indicate that income inequality has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[2][3][4][5][6] after several decades of stability.[7][8] While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[9][10][11]
Studies indicate the source of the widening gap (sometimes called the Great Divergence) has not been gender inequality, which has declined in the US over the last several decades,[12] nor inequality between black and white Americans, which has stagnated during that time,[13] nor has the gap between the poor and middle class been the major cause—though it has grown.[14] Most of the growth has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity becoming more extreme the further one goes up in the income distribution.[15] Upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.[16] The Brookings Institution said in 2013 that income inequality was increasing and becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.[17]
A 2011 study by the CBO[18] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[18] Other sources find that the trend has continued since then.[19] In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[20] Income inequality is not uniform among the states; as measured by the Gini coefficient: after tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[21]
Scholars and others differ as to the causes, solutions, and the significance of the trend,[22] which in 2011 helped ignite the "Occupy" protest movement. Education and increased demand for skilled labor are often cited as causes,[23] some have emphasized the importance of public policy; others believe the cause(s) of inequality's rise are not well understood.[18] Inequality has been described both as irrelevant in the face of economic opportunity (or social mobility) in America, and as a cause of the decline in that opportunity.[24][25]