How+to+Read+and+Annotate+Philo+Texts

How to Annotate and Closely Read a Philosophy Text – by Bill Anelli, 2009 In my view, the basic idea of annotating text is to “penetrate” the philosophical text, which is very different from simply “reading” or becoming “familiar” with the text. Although the goals of annotating and simply “reading” might be the same – to understand what is being read – the results are not. With “traditional” philosophy texts it is usually necessary to annotate, to take notes while reading.

Annotation, or making written notes in the margins of the text or in your own reading journal, is something akin to hunting, tracking, capturing – not animals, but concepts and arguments as they unfold on the page. Or one could use the analogy of puzzles. If you've ever put together a complicated puzzle, you began with a pile of puzzle pieces on the table and then slowly, carefully, fit them together. It starts slowly because you have no reference points but picks up steam once you have established some clearly defined areas of “completed puzzle” and then gets faster and faster until finally you understand the relationship between the small pieces and the “big picture” of the overall puzzle. Perhaps you even “cheat” a bit by looking at the picture of the puzzle on the box.

One way to approach annotation is to continually ask the following questions of the philosophy text you are reading:

1) What is the **issue** that is being addressed by the philosopher? What is the larger philosophical conversation that the text you are reading belongs to? 2) What **conclusion** or viewpoint is the philosopher trying to defend or support? 3) What **reasons or premises** are provided in support of the conclusion? What sort of strategies are employed? For example: a. Empirical evidence from the physical and social sciences? b. “Self-evident” premises or premises the philosopher thinks to be obvious and in no need of further support? c. Inductive or deductive inferences/reasoning? d. Causal reasoning? e. Illustrations, examples, stories that give us a way of clearly “picturing” the philosopher’s argument.

4) Does the philosopher **summarize or paraphrase** other philosopher’s views?

a. For example, views by philosophers who disagree with the view put forth by the philosopher that you are reading? This is very important. Often a philosopher will spend some time expressing a view **__that they do not hold__** in order to then debunk the view (and thus gain your confidence!). Be very careful to distinguish between views that a philosopher is defending and views that a philosopher is attacking. This is not always easy to do!

5) Where, exactly, does the philosopher **change topics**? Move on to a new argument or illustration?

6) **Evaluation** of the philosopher’s argument(s) – what are the weaknesses and strengths of the philosopher’s arguments? Do they commit fallacies? Do them omit important information?

7) Finally you should note your **reactions** to what you are reading. Are you:

a. Confused or exasperated? If so, can you identify what exactly is confusing or exasperating for you?

b. Blindly gullible? Are you uncritically agreeing with everything the philosopher is saying? Uh oh.

c. Blindly critical? Are you substituting your loathing for a philosopher (as a recent student once said of Bakunin) for close and careful reading?

d. Applying the principles of charity and fidelity? Charity is when we give the philosopher the benefit of the doubt. Fidelity is when we faithfully and accurately understand the structure and argument put forth by the philosopher. Using lines, arrows, abbreviations, brackets, keywords, phrases, and //some// underlining (not too much) you will make some headway addressing these questions (and always keep in mind that philosophy texts, to be fully understood require **__multiple close reads__**). Ultimately, it is best if you come up with your own system but here are some techniques that I use. Let’s start with some other questions that I ask while reading (and in parentheses I’ll describe how I answer these questions with annotation marks):

1. What are the different themes, ideas or topics being defended? //(When I see a new topic I draw a line with large dots at each end between the old and new topics)//.

//2.// Why are these topics or themes discussed in //this// order? Why idea or topic A, then B, then C and not C, then A, then B? (//here I start by writing key words or phrases that express the most important idea of a given section or paragraph and then draw arrows from one concept to the other. Then, upon rereading I’ll hopefully understand why the philosopher developed her or his ideas in this **particular** way).//

//3.// What do these ideas mean and how are the ideas being used to support the philosophers’ overall conclusion? Are examples, analogies, or illustrations given by the philosopher to help clarify for the reader what this topic or concept is about or to provide further evidence in support of a view? //(I will sometimes write “example” when an example is given and use keywords to sum up the topics or reasons given for a conclusion).//

//4.// Who are the enemies? who are the friends? is the philosopher attacking a view, a person, an argument? if so, what's the view or argument the philosopher is attacking? does the philosopher first paraphrase or describe the view before attack it? do you successfully distinguish between a philosopher paraphrasing a view they disagree with and describing a view they agree with? //(perhaps I’ll write “attacks X philos. for belief in Y…”)//

//5.// Next, how goes it with the reader (you)? Which paragraphs do you “get” (and one way to test this is to see if you can summarize a paragraph in your own words) and which paragraphs do you find “totally confusing?” Knowing where you are lost is nearly as important as knowing where you are. //(I will simply write ?? when I’m lost or ? followed by “contr.” if I think the philosopher is contradicting him or herself.)//

In sum I write specific markings in the margins, between the paragraphs, and even on the words themselves. Then in an ideal world (that world with 40 hours in one day), I “reconstruct” my margin notes with an outline on the computer or in my notebook.

1. Key words – these are written in the margins next to the paragraph I'm reading. I write down key words that identify the concept or topic being discussed. 2. Key phrases – similar to above but in this case I put in my own words the basic idea being expressed. 3. Questions – if a questionn comes to mind -either I don't understand the text or i think the philosopher is overlooking something important or contracting him or herslef then i write a question- often at the bottom ofthepage where thre's more room. 4. Underline key words or ideas 5. Draw a line between sections of the text (often, but not always between paragraphs) – when I see that one topic is finished and a new topic begins, I draw a line between the two sections. 6. Lines with arrows

Still unclear? You might want to check out these two webpages that describe annotation: [|Critical Reading Techniques] and [|Advice on Reading]. Finally you can click here to see a “random” example of how I annotate a text.