'I dont know that I have to recall Sartre while I have travelled half planet to India.'-- lol, why there is a common ressentiment toward Sartre via scholars with different backgrounds? It seems Sartre is such a shallow philosopher who will discredit others with a certain shallowness. I think the answer is that Sartre applies socalled 'dialectical structure' only to the ontology of human being rather than in a more general sense. And Hegel may suggest there is an absolute, which unites a whole. On the contrary, Sartre don't think being-in-itself and being-for-itself(nothingness) could be united. He follows the Kierkegaard's critique on Hegel at this point.
A dog perceives things in a why, we can perceive things in a different way but not only that, science allows us to extend our perception. There's no rational reason to suppose we are the ultimate perceptors and that we see things for what they are. It doesn't make any difference in the everyday world but it's not that simply as you put it
