<PTL> structures the work (workflow)
How, then, can one work with the <PTL> language? First, you may save the pages as <PTL> or print them out as PDF files. These files will then be available to you for your work. You are, of course, also welcome to further develop this material. In any case, you can upload this material to the AI, and it will know and understand it.
Listen to an AI-generated podcast on the workflow with PTL
How does one train prompts for philosophical analyses – and what does that have to do with croissants? In this episode, we explain the PTL method for students of philosophy: how to develop precise prompts from seminar notes, how philosophical TAGs help to systematically analyse content – and why AI analysis is worthwhile.
Consider, for example, a productive and carefully elaborated “normal” prompt such as the following.
Analysieren Sie einen philosophischen oder kulturtheoretischen Text auf seine impliziten und expliziten anthropologischen Annahmen hin. Gehen Sie dabei wie folgt vor: (1) Identifizieren Sie die expliziten Aussagen und die impliziten ontologischen und epistemologischen Prämissen des zugrunde liegenden Menschenbildes. (Welche Vorstellungen vom Wesen des Menschen liegen dem Text zugrunde? Wird der Mensch als Teil einer kontinuierlichen Natur gesehen oder als ontologische Sonderexistenz? Werden Gesetzmäßigkeiten der menschlichen Entwicklung angenommen, oder gilt diese als kontingent und offen? Wie positioniert sich der Mensch im Verhältnis zur Natur – als integrierter Bestandteil oder als Gegenpol – und wird das Wissen über den Menschen als universal gültig oder als Ergebnis sozialer/politischer Konventionen dargestellt?) (2) Arbeiten Sie die möglichen alternativen Annahmen heraus, die der Text nicht wählt. Nennen Sie ontologische und epistemologische Optionen, die prinzipiell möglich wären (z. B. Kontinuität statt Diskontinuität, Vielfalt kontingenter Entwicklungen statt eine einheitliche Gesetzmäßigkeit, etc.), die aber im Text implizit ausgeschlossen oder übergangen werden. (3) Stellen Sie die im Text getroffenen anthropologischen Entscheidungen den möglichen Alternativen gegenüber, um herauszuarbeiten, wie und warum das betrachtete Menschenbild bestimmte Sichtweisen ausklammert. (Begründen Sie auch, weshalb die Autorin/der Autor wohl diese Entscheidungen getroffen und andere Möglichkeiten verworfen hat.) (4) Reflektieren Sie die normativen und politischen Implikationen des Menschenbildes: Zeigen Sie auf, inwiefern bestimmte Werte, Machtinteressen oder normative Vorentscheidungen im Spiel sind. Machen Sie deutlich, dass ein Menschenbild kein neutraler Befund ist, sondern konzeptionelle Konsequenzen hat (etwa wenn eine Theorie menschliches Handeln als naturgesetzlich festlegt und damit politische Gestaltungsspielräume negiert). (5) Formulieren Sie abschließend eine mögliche alternative Anthropologie auf Basis Ihrer Analyse. Skizzieren Sie ein anderes Menschenbild, das die vom Originaltext vernachlässigten Möglichkeiten mit einbezieht, und erläutern Sie, welche methodischen Neuerungen sich daraus ergeben.
This prompt can be provided to an AI just as the <PTL> material can. The <PTL> evaluation can then begin. For example, with this prompt:
Bitte ein Muster-Template in PTL ausarbeiten für die Texterschließung von Thomas Hobbes Naturzustandstheorie in De Cive und im Leviathan. Das Template soll Anthropologie und rechtsphilosophische Aspekte des Naturzustandes herausarbeiten.
The result is the following <PTL> prompt:
<PTL>
<ZIEL>Analysis of a philosophical or cultural-theoretical text with regard to its implicit and explicit anthropological assumptions and premises.</ZIEL>
<THEMA>Anthropology - Image of the Human Being and its Implications</THEMA>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Anthropological</PERSPEKTIVE>
<METHODE>Hermeneutic Text Interpretation, Conceptual Analysis, Ontological Analysis, Epistemic Analysis, Normative Analysis, Axiological Analysis, Comparative Analysis</METHODE>
<REGELN>
<REGEL1>Identify explicit statements regarding the image of the human being as well as implicit ontological and epistemological premises underlying this image. Ask: What essence of the human being is assumed (part of nature vs. special existence)? Are there laws governing development, or is contingency assumed? What is the relationship to nature (part of it vs. counterpart)? Is knowledge portrayed as universal or as conventional?</REGEL1>
<REGEL2>Work out the possible alternative ontological and epistemological assumptions that are implicitly excluded or bypassed in the text (e.g. continuity instead of discontinuity, diversity instead of uniformity).</REGEL2>
<REGEL3>Contrast the anthropological decisions made in the text with the identified alternatives. Explain why the author presumably made these decisions and rejected other possibilities.</REGEL3>
<REGEL4>Reflect on the normative and political implications of the identified image of the human being. Show to what extent values, power interests, or normative predeterminations are at play, and what conceptual consequences this image of the human being entails (e.g. defining human action as governed by natural law and thereby negating scope for political agency).</REGEL4>
</REGELN>
<ANALYSEKRITERIEN>
<KRITERIUM>Precise identification and clarification of the central anthropological concepts and premises.</KRITERIUM>
<KRITERIUM>Correct reconstruction of the image of the human being underlying the text.</KRITERIUM>
<KRITERIUM>Systematic elaboration and juxtaposition of alternative anthropological assumptions.</KRITERIUM>
<KRITERIUM>Well-founded analysis of the normative and political implications of the image of the human being, with textual reference.</KRITERIUM>
</ANALYSEKRITERIEN>
<METAPRUEFUNGEN>
<PRUEFEKOHAERENZ /> <!-- Checks the internal coherence of the analysis results -->
<PRUEFETEXTBEZUG /> <!-- Ensures that all statements are related to the source text -->
<FINDEARGUMENTALTERNATIVE /> <!-- Prompts the search for alternative interpretations of the anthropological assumptions -->
<ERLAEUTERERELEVANZ /> <!-- Requires explanation of the significance of the image of the human being for the overall argument of the text and/or contemporary questions -->
<PRUEFEANNAHMEN /> <!-- Reflection on one's own unexamined presuppositions during the analysis -->
</METAPRUEFUNGEN>
<SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>
<BEGRIFFSANALYSE ziel="Clarification and precision of central anthropological concepts in the text" kernbegriffe="Human being, Nature, Reason, Passion, Freedom, Will, Society" analyseFokus="semantisch|diskursiv" methode="kontextsensitiv"/>
<ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE ziel="Identification of the ontological premises of the image of the human being" fokus="Wesenheit|Existenz|Relationen" suchkriterien="Essence, Nature of the human being, Mode of existence"/>
<EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE ziel="Identification of the epistemological premises of the image of the human being" fokus="Wissen|Erkenntnis|GrenzenErkennen" suchkriterien="Knowledge, Cognition, Understanding, Reason, Senses"/>
<NORMATIVEANALYSE ziel="Analysis of the normative aspects of the image of the human being" fokus="normativ" normart="beide" naturalismus="beide" anwendungsfallanalyse="false"/>
<AXIOLOGIEANALYSE ziel="Analysis of the valuations and the role of values within the image of the human being" wertart="beide" analyseFokus="semantisch|diskursiv"/>
</SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>
<TEXTERSTELLUNG>
<ANTWORESTRIKTANALYSEORIENTIERT /> <!-- Ensures that the response constitutes a strictly analytical treatment -->
Compose a coherent, analytical text that presents the results of the anthropological analysis, structured according to the given rules and criteria. Integrate the results of the specific analysis tags into the continuous prose.
</TEXTERSTELLUNG>
</PTL>AI should always explain to you what was done, why it was done, and how it was done when carrying out tasks of this kind. Whenever you want something from AI, always ask it to justify its approach. If you want to improve a prompt with AI, tell the AI to experiment and to explain why the result is better than the original. These are – as so often – empirical claims. You can then test them. In any case, you will find the explanations here:
Expand the AI's explanations of the PTL prompt structure.
I am happy to explain how the original abstract anthropology prompt was transformed into a PTL template, based on the information in the sources.
The transformation of the original “Abstracted Universal Prompt for Anthropology” into a PTL template proceeds by breaking down the multi-stage analysis process into specific PTL tags and elements.
The overall objective of the original prompt, namely to analyze a text with regard to its anthropological assumptions, is captured in the PTL template by two tags: the <ZIEL> tag and the <THEMA> tag. <ZIEL> specifies the concrete analytical task (e.g. “Analysis of a philosophical or cultural-theoretical text...”), while <THEMA> defines the relevant philosophical field (e.g. “Anthropology...”).
The first step of the original prompt, which focuses on the identification of explicit and implicit assumptions and premises, forms the core of interpreting the text with regard to the conception of the human being it contains. This step is represented in PTL by several elements. The instruction to “Identify the explicit statements and the implicit ontological and epistemological premises” becomes the first and most important rule in the <REGELN> block: <REGEL1>. Rules serve to divide the analytical process into numbered steps that are to be carried out one after another. The specific premises and questions named in the prompt (for example, questions concerning the essence of the human being, the relationship between humans and nature, regularities, or human knowledge) are incorporated directly into the text of <REGEL1> in order to define the focus of identification precisely. The reference to “ontological and epistemological premises” points to specific philosophical perspectives and forms of analysis that are represented in PTL by <PERSPEKTIVE> (here “Anthropological,” but implicitly also ontological/epistemic) and <METHODE>. More precisely, <SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS> are used for this purpose: <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE /> for questions concerning the being and nature of humans as well as their relationship to nature, and <EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE /> (or <ERKENNTNSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE />) for questions concerning knowledge and cognition of human beings. In addition, <BEGRIFFSANALYSE /> is added, since the clarification of central concepts within the conception of the human being (such as “nature,” “reason,” and “passion”) is essential to this first step.
Steps (2) and (3) of the original prompt, namely working out alternatives and comparing them, serve the critical contextualization and justification of the conception of the human being that has been identified. “Working out possible alternative assumptions” becomes <REGEL2>. “Contrasting... and identifying how and why the conception of the human being under consideration excludes certain perspectives” becomes <REGEL3>. The instruction “Also explain why the author presumably made these choices and rejected other possibilities” is likewise part of <REGEL3> and requires an analysis of the argument, which is implicitly incorporated into the <METHODE> tag and can be prompted through meta-tags such as <FINDEARGUMENTALTERNATIVE />.
Step (4), the reflection on normative and political implications, analyzes the consequences of the conception of the human being presented in the text. This instruction becomes <REGEL4>. The focus on “normative” aspects justifies the inclusion of <NORMATIVEANALYSE /> in the <SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>. This tag helps identify and analyze normative vocabulary and statements about what ought to be done. The mention of “values” and “power interests” can be supported by <AXIOLOGIEANALYSE /> (value theory) in order to analyze the evaluative judgments contained in the text. Considering the “conceptual consequences” and “scope for political action” is a form of explaining relevance, which can additionally be encouraged by the meta-tag <ERLAEUTERERELEVANZ />.
The fifth step, the formulation of an alternative anthropology, is a creative task that goes beyond the mere analysis of the text at hand by sketching a new theory. Since PTL is primarily geared toward structured textual analysis, and step 5 is not a rule for interpreting the source text, this step is deliberately not integrated as a <REGEL#> in the core template for textual interpretation. It could be included as a separate instruction following the actual PTL analysis or, if a creative output were desired, triggered within <TEXTERSTELLUNG> by means of <ANTWORTEKREATIV />. Since the previous template for Hobbes, however, used <ANTWORESTRIKTANALYSEORIENTIERT /> to ensure a strictly analytical output without creative elements, this tag was retained here in order to maintain the focus on the analysis of the original text in accordance with steps 1–4.
Finally, quality assurance and formatting are taken into account. The care and precision implicitly required by the original prompt in conducting the analysis (e.g. “work out,” “justify”) are made explicit through <ANALYSEKRITERIEN>. Criteria such as “Precise identification” or “Well-founded analysis” ensure that the results meet the requirements. Meta-tags such as <PRUEFEKOHAERENZ />, <PRUEFETEXTBEZUG />, and <PRUEFEANNAHMEN /> serve the critical reflection on the analytical process itself and ensure the quality and traceability of the results. They correspond to the PTL philosophy of self-assessment and transparency. The instruction concerning the “formulation” of the result is specified in the <TEXTERSTELLUNG> tag. <ANTWORESTRIKTANALYSEORIENTIERT /> ensures that the output corresponds to the character of a scholarly textual analysis: a “dispassionate, logical, and text-oriented examination.” An additional instruction in the <TEXTERSTELLUNG> tag specifies the desired structure of the output text.
In summary, the PTL template transforms the sequential workflow of the original prompt into a structured XML syntax that uses various PTL elements such as objectives, rules, methods, criteria, meta-checks, and specific analyses. The specific analysis tags such as <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE />, <EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE />, <NORMATIVEANALYSE />, and <AXIOLOGIEANALYSE /> make it possible to direct the AI specifically toward the ontological, epistemological, normative, and axiological aspects of anthropology required by the prompt. Step 5 of the original prompt, which goes beyond textual analysis, is deliberately not anchored as a core rule in this template, which is focused on textual interpretation.
This new template, structured using <PTL>, can be effectively and deliberately manipulated through other <TAG>s. If you are not satisfied with the results, you can also modify the text within the <TAG>s. Or you can change the comment text associated with the self-closing <TAG>s. (Comments are: <!-- ... -->. In genuine markup languages, they are rarely interpreted. Human-facing AI reads them along with everything else. In this way, you can define the effect of the self-closing <TAG>s.) You should explore this working environment for yourself. From every course you attend, you should take away a series of templates like these. That is more valuable than your notes, transcripts, or examination results alone. In fact, you can begin immediately with “Step 5.” After all, the AI did not want to incorporate it into the <PTL> template. This is understandable because it is no longer textual analysis. But creative alternatives help when reading because they show us where we may reasonably suspect unreflected and unnecessary prejudices on the part of authors. So: create a creative anthropology template! The template presented above does not produce unambiguously good results for Hobbes because it does not specifically isolate the jurisprudential line of argument in his state-of-nature narrative. That is an interesting task.
Start right away! If you take the prompt above that was used to translate the anthropology prompt into <PTL>, you can immediately apply it to the prompts on the PTL | philosophical turn page and study the AI's explanations.