 Using arrows and labels, what was the visual “itinerary” of your reading. Where did your eyes
go to, when, and why, as you read?
o
o
My eyes skimmed across the text I was focusing on, sometimes repeatedly, but
sometimes it would also scan backwards, even to another paragraph as to help me
make connections between what I was currently reading and what I read seconds
ago.
I also, near the very end, scanned forward to see these questions, if only to assure
myself that the pain was near the end.
 What questions, if any, did you ask yourself as you read? Mark the places on the text.
o
I did not consciously ask myself questions as I went through except for with this
sentence “For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action did not
objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce representations”. I asked
myself whether this was grammatically correct and if that was why I was stuck.
 Where did you get stuck, if any place? (Mark the text) What, then, did you do, if you got
stuck?
o
While I’m sure there were other smaller sticking points that I did not consciously
recognize, the above quote was a very hard sticking point. I decided that if I replaced
“did” with “if,” it made the sentence more intelligible and decided that when reading
on that I understood the idea.
o
“our own faculty of knowledge (sensible impressions serving merely as the occasion)
supplies from itself. If our faculty of knowledge makes any such addition, it may be
that we are not in a position to distinguish it from the raw material, until with long
practice of attention we have become skilled in separating it.”
o
I did not quite understand this passage at first, but when I left it decided Kant was
separating types of knowledge. Only after reading the entire passage and returning
to it did I comprehend what the passage was distinguishing. I was partially stuck on
the terminology of “faculty of knowledge”, but only later after understanding later
distinctions did I understand he was separating what the faculty of knowledge
supplied and what the raw material of experience was supplying.
 If you could not “unstuck” yourself at each moment of being stuck, what did you do next – and
why?
o
I moved on.
 Which “reading strategies” did you use when (without my having prompted you to use any)? If
not, why not, do you think? If so, which ones did you consciously choose and why?
o
Interestingly, at first, I did not feel like I consciously used any reading strategies. I
feel like I forced myself through the passage. Upon reflection, the strategies I used
the most were re-reading and making connections to my own experience of
knowledge, and to what I knew about Kant. Particularly my previously held definition
of a priori, made the last few paragraphs easier.
o
This is perhaps a strategy with a name that I don’t know, but I prioritized information
as it came in throughout the sentence. This is something I try to teach my students
as well, if something is in parentheticals and is confusing, try reading the sentence
without it, and then go back and understand what it’s modifying. I try to predict what
is most important in the sentence and paragraph as I go through.
 Where /when did you start feeling dumb/frustrated if at all. What did you do/feel about it if you
did? If you quit, say where and why.
o
When I saw the passage was Kant, I felt excitement at the challenge ahead and
honestly felt like it was a matter of ego to get through and understand everything. I
doubt that this is something my students feel when they encounter a hard text, but I
want it to be something they experience: the joy of conquering text. I felt dumb at the
second sentence when the “did” stumped me. I did not quit, although I will say that in
my freshman year of college I quit taking philosophy in my second semester to avoid
reading the convoluted sentences of Kant again, having felt like I had struggled with
him enough in my senior year of high school.
 On a scale of 1-4, how confident are you of your understanding of Kant’s opening setup of his
inquiry?
o Assuming 4 is very confident, I’m a 4.
 Circle the 1-2 key sentences in this selection, and be ready to explain why you are confident
that they are key even if you are not sure what they mean.
o
In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge
independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all
experience. Opposed to it is empirical knowledge, which is knowledge possible
only a posteriori, that is, through experience.
 Title this reading and be ready to explain why you gave it that title
o Knowing without Empirical Experience
 In a sentence, state what Kant intends to explore. And speculate as to why he might want to
explore such a question.
o He wants to explore if it is possible to know without experience or if knowledge is
entirely based on experience. I think he wants to know if there is a type of pure
knowledge that people are born with or can reason to without external experience.