[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Your own words make my point:

"Anyway, simply put:

A being in itself doesn't have consciousness.

A being for itself does have consciousness"

Surely you realize that to the vast majority of people (including me) this is an unclear, imprecicse statement. Yet you make it without an accomanying explanation. That is either because

1. You want to appear smarter than you really are by using jargon unknown to the reader. or

2. There actually is no way to make this statement totally precise. So leaving it unexplained is both necessary and again makes you really look smarter than you really are.


[/ QUOTE ]


Pffft. What are you on man. Is this not the philosophy forum?

The Op wants clarification on the meaning of a couple of assertations by Satre. These assertaions dont exist in a vacuum, and as Philosophers hate ambiguity he will have spent alot of time defing exactly what he means in his use of philosophical terminology.

Every field of human knowledge has its unique terminilogy that is opaque to those unversed in this particular field. Exaplain string theory in un dumbed down way and 99% of those listening will not understand the "jargon" used in such an explanation. Philosophy is no different.

As this is a philosophy forum, I think the use of technical philosophical terminology should be acceptable with out attack by those whos own exposure to philosophy is obviously limited.

By the nature of your un provoked aggression it seems you are threatened by philosophy. Is your massive intellectual ego afraid that even if you were to make the effort to engage with the subjective matter your intelectual limitations would leave you still uniformed.

As to the nature of inteligence, my pocker calcuator is dumber than a snail yet is brilliant at maths. Computational ability can be demonstrated therefore to require literaly no inteligence.