diff --git a/src/content/posts/kant-view-of-mind-and-consciousness/index.md b/src/content/posts/kant-view-of-mind-and-consciousness/index.md
index 580d84a3f..8de664001 100644
--- a/src/content/posts/kant-view-of-mind-and-consciousness/index.md
+++ b/src/content/posts/kant-view-of-mind-and-consciousness/index.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 title: Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self
-published: 2024-07-24
+published: 2024-07-29
 description: Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self
 image: './cover.png'
 tags: ["Theory"]
@@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ Turning now to Kant's view of the mind, we will start with a point about method:
 entirely consistent views on the empirical study of the mind. The empirical method for doing psychology that Kant
 discussed was introspection.
 
-Sometimes he held such study to be hopeless. The key text on psychology is in The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural
-Science. There Kant tell us that “the empirical doctrine of the soul … must remain even further removed than chemistry
+Sometimes he held such study to be hopeless. The key text on psychology is in **The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural
+Science**. There Kant tell us that “the empirical doctrine of the soul … must remain even further removed than chemistry
 from the rank of what may be called a natural science proper”. (In Kant's defence, there was nothing resembling a single
 unified theory of chemical reactions in his time.) The contents of introspection, in his terms inner sense, cannot be
 studied scientifically for at least 5 reasons.
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ empirical study of the mind, given that he himself did it. He did so elsewhere.
 links 'self-observation' and observation of others and calls them both sources of anthropology
 
 Whatever, no kind of empirical psychology can yield necessary truths about the mind. In the light of this limitation,
-how _should_ we study the mind? Kant's answer was: transcendental method using transcendental arguments (notions
+how _should_ we study the mind? Kant's answer was: _transcendental method using transcendental arguments_ (notions
 introduced earlier). If we cannot observe the connections among the denizens of inner sense to any purpose, we can study
 what the mind _must_ be like and what capacities and structures (in Kant's jargon, faculties) it _must_ have if it is to
 represent things as it does. With this method we can find universally true, that is to say, 'transcendental'
diff --git a/src/content/posts/reading-notes-critique-of-pure-reason/cover.png b/src/content/posts/reading-notes-critique-of-pure-reason/cover.png
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..688de2a8f
Binary files /dev/null and b/src/content/posts/reading-notes-critique-of-pure-reason/cover.png differ
diff --git a/src/content/posts/reading-notes-critique-of-pure-reason/index.md b/src/content/posts/reading-notes-critique-of-pure-reason/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6c1e2d07f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/content/posts/reading-notes-critique-of-pure-reason/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+---
+title: Critique of Pure Reason
+published: 2024-07-27
+description: Reading Notes
+image: './cover.png'
+tags: ["Theory"]
+category: 'Philosophy'
+draft: false 
+---
+
+Kant argues that our mathematical, physical, and quotidian knowledge of nature requires certain judgments that are
+"synthetic" rather than "analytic," that is, going beyond what can be known solely in virtue of the contents of the
+concepts involved in them and the application of the logical principles of identity and contradiction to these concepts,
+and yet also knowable _a priori_, that is, independently of any particular experience since no particular experience
+could ever be sufficient to establish the universal and necessary validity of these judgments. 
+