Re: cognitive != observable?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
OmegaZero2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> I started with Being and Time.

So did I - then Husserl.
>

> "David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > There's really no need to study Sartre (or Merleau-Ponty, or Heidegger
> > or Husserl), *if* one understands what Skinner and Quine have to say. If
> > one doesn't understand Skinner it might ultimately help if you read a
> > little "Being and Time" or some Sartre. Reading what the
> > phenomenologists write will ultimately make what the radical
> > behaviourist has to say much clearer to those that need to have it made
> > clearer. I'd start with Husserl, and selectively so.

--
David Longley