yes, i know he made great progress with phenomenology but didn't get all the way, he concluded that at some level we construct our own intention but then got hot and bothered because that doesn't make sense at the end of the day. i think this is the point about the conversion between duhem and pointcare

what was your question, sorry

your a cheap date mate

because he works on the proof that we do not construct reality for ourselves which is my aim

sartre aims at the proof no good starting in the middle pal, you'll never get anywhere

intention or aim or desire, "progress" is the word used in the first sentence. By progress he must mean that there was some sort of aim that was being aimed at which has been achieved. Thought must have been aiming at reducing the series to those appearances which manifest it, i.e. it was intending to manifest it

In fact the next sentence specifies what the aim was, apparently the reducing of the series was the means by which that was achieved

so we have

what: modern thought has realised considerable progress
how: by reducing the existent to the series of appearances which manifest it
why: to overcome the dualisms which have embarrassed philosophy and to replace them with the monism of the phenomenon

intention is key
how to define it? is it simply the implication of any action or does it require a series of actions which all point in the same direction? that is my problem with getting from the first sentence to the second one (Its aim was to overcome etc...)

apparently that is not true

But seriously speaking, I stick to my guns that no philosophy has ever even got near to the truth.

(And that stands also including trying to get at what the condept of truth is, in and by itself; truth being an affirmable relationship between two said things, one of which allegedly refers to reality.) — god must be atheist

i would disagree with that, i think b+n is pure truth, it's called the phenomenological method and it describes existence

here's something that definitely true : "it is there"

i don't think so

very funny

Sartre was much more complex than your questions implicate. His transphenomenal being of consciousness was the post-modernist denial by the dualists of the monoism of Hegelian materialism on one hand, and a transgressed hypophoid existentialist dasein connected via deontological supernaturalization of the self, on the other, which he calls, luckily, "self" for short.

There. That should clear up some things for you, I hope. — god must be atheist

not really

the problem of existence is addressed by Sartre in the introduction of Being and Nothingness
what is it? it's a God-given feeling that comes from acting in accordance with the phenomenon which is to ensure that you always check in series what you are doing so that you can be sure that you are in no way the object of your perception
then you get existence - "concrete, individual being, here and now"

it's literally the hardest writing in the world to understand

it depends if you have a passion for truth or not

God is not an atheist

i think the approach is to understand that there is a guiding method being used which is the "phenomenological" method. It is a case of applying the method of simply describing what it is which appears as an appearance.
Remember we are applying systematic doubt at all points and making no assumptions but that which is not an assumption is that being appears or rather a being, i.e. there is something, a totality, appearing as a fact to me at any particular time, like a cup.
So the first word we can use without any controversy is "it".
What describes it in the first instant? Well that is that it is manifest, i.e. it presents itself as being.
But at the same time there is the flip side of the phenomenon which is that it is an appearance to a subject so we can talk about "modern thought" which is what I am doing to manifest it.
How does one manifest something? Well it has to be by way of an appearance, i.e. something that is arriving and has some sort of content. There is a series of appearances which manifest it and that is exactly the content of your memory, the existent.
It goes on like this until we have constructed our first sentence which i listed before, and we know for sure that it is correct while it appears as a fact, whatever it is.
I know i haven't got this fully correct but would love to have some help in putting this together.

it's the ontological proof which is contained in the introduction, it seems that the rest of it is an expansion