Listen to an AI-generated podcast on the philosophical turn
PTL structures textual analysis in a targeted manner for philosophical questions and domains. It enables the focused examination of concepts, ontology, or normativity. This "philosophical turn" leads to deeper methodological insights into texts.
PTL: philosophical turn. The AI must be fitted with a “corset of thought” using the methods available within a discipline. Otherwise, it thinks too freely. The threads of such a corset are formed by perspective TAGs such as these: <BEGRIFFLICH />, <ONTOLOGISCH />, <ERKENNTNISTHEORETISCH />, <EPISTEMISCH />, <GELTUNGSTHEORETISCH />, <NORMATIV />, <SEMANTISCH />, <AXIOLOGISCH />. Here is the structured extension of the PTL:
Table 1: New self-closing PERSPECTIVE TAGs
| PTL Tag | Definition | Example reading instruction in the sense of the TAG |
|---|---|---|
<BEGRIFFLICH /> |
This tag establishes an analytical perspective in which the AI specifically identifies linguistic and logical structures in texts that serve to clarify philosophical concepts – for instance, definitions, distinctions, or precisifications of concepts such as “causality” or “morality”. | “Analyze Kant's Critique of Pure Reason with a focus on conceptual work: Identify passages in which Kant explicitly defines key concepts such as ‘category’, ‘intuition’, or ‘thing in itself’, or distinguishes them from other concepts. Examine how he structures concepts such as ‘synthesis’ or ‘transcendental’ in order to specify their role in epistemology. Show where Kant identifies ambiguities (e.g. concerning ‘freedom’) and resolves them methodically. Explain how these clarifications support his argument for transcendental idealism. Present the results as a list including quotation, concept, and contextual function.” |
<ONTOLOGISCH /> |
This tag establishes an ontological perspective in which the AI examines texts for fundamental assumptions about existence, the structure of reality, and the nature of entities (e.g. ideas, matter, universals) – for instance, questions concerning the being of “forms” or the reducibility of ethical properties. | “Analyze Plato's Republic with an ontological focus: Identify passages in which Plato describes ideas/forms (e.g. the Good, the Beautiful) as eternal, unchanging entities and distinguishes them from the sensible world. Examine how he ontologically evaluates matter as an inferior reality and grounds the ideas as ‘true being’. Show where he treats universals (e.g. justice) as independent, sui generis entities that cannot be reduced to particular things. Explain how this ontology supports his argument for the philosopher-king and the idea of the Good. Present the results as a list including quotation, ontological category, and reference to the dialogue.” |
<ERKENNTNISTHEORETISCH /> |
This tag establishes an epistemological perspective in which the AI systematically examines texts for sources of knowledge, the grounding of experience, and the limits of cognition (e.g. sense impressions vs. a priori principles). | “Analyze David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding with an epistemological focus: Identify passages in which Hume distinguishes impressions from ideas and discusses their role as the foundation of knowledge. Examine his critique of causality as a mere habitual assumption without logical necessity. Show where he formulates the problem of induction and exposes empirical inferences as irrational. Explain how he replaces metaphysics with reference to experience and defines ‘belief’ as the basis of action. Present the results as a list including quotation, core epistemological argument, and textual context.” |
<EPISTEMISCH /> |
This tag establishes an epistemological perspective in which the AI systematically examines texts for sources of knowledge, conditions of validity, and structures of cognitive acts (e.g. intentionality vs. feeling) – for instance, questions of justification, clarity, or the role of introspection. | “Analyze Husserl's Logical Investigations with an epistemological focus: Identify passages in which Husserl defines intentionality as an essential property of consciousness and distinguishes it from mere sensations. Examine his critique of psychologism, which reduces logical laws to subjective processes, and his grounding of pure logic as an a priori science. Show how he conceives of essential intuition (eidetic reduction) as a method for gaining knowledge of necessary truths. Explain the distinction between noesis (act of meaning) and noema (intended sense) using the example of perceptual cognition. Present the results as a list including quotation, core epistemic concept, and reference to the work.” |
<GELTUNGSTHEORETISCH /> |
This tag establishes a perspective in which the AI examines texts for grounds of validity, structures of justification, and sources of evidence (e.g. intuition, coherence, a priori principles) for statements or norms. | “Analyze Ross's The Right and the Good with a focus on validity theory: Identify passages in which Ross grounds prima facie duties as intuitively evident, non-reducible basic norms and distinguishes them from utilitarian consequentialist weighing. Examine his argument for why duties such as keeping promises or making reparation are ‘sui generis’ and require no external justification. Show how he explains moral evidence through coherent intuitions and defends their validity against empiricist reduction. Explain the role of situations of weighing, in which conflicting duties modify their validity according to the situation. Present the results as a list including quotation, argument concerning validity, and reference to the work.” |
<NORMATIV /> |
This tag establishes a normative perspective in which the AI examines texts for values, duties, and moral judgments – for instance, questions of “ought”, “good/bad”, or the reducibility of ethical concepts such as “justice”. | “Compare the normative foundations in Kelsen (Pure Theory of Law) and Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals): Analyze how Kelsen conceives legal norms as hypothetical positings (the ‘basic norm’) without ultimate moral grounding, versus Kant's categorical imperative as a principle of reason with a universal claim to validity. Examine the role of autonomy: in Kant as the self-legislation of reason, in Kelsen as a purely formal legal system without ethical foundation. Show how both define ‘duty’: Kant as an unconditional maxim, Kelsen as a positivist legal consequence. Explain why Kelsen excludes morality from normativity, whereas Kant regards it as its core. Structure the results as a juxtaposition of central arguments and sources of norms.” |
<SEMANTISCH /> |
This tag establishes a semantic perspective in which the AI examines texts for structures of meaning, conceptual analysis, and context-dependence (e.g. ambiguities, metaphorical use) – for instance, the clarification of “truth” or “promise” in everyday language use. | “Analyze J. L. Austin's How to Do Things with Words with a semantic focus: Identify passages in which Austin defines performative utterances (e.g. ‘I promise’) as linguistic actions that cannot be true or false but can succeed or fail. Contrast this with Noam Chomsky's universal grammar, which regards language as an abstract system of rules (cf. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax). Show how Austin argues for meaning-in-use (‘use’) against Chomsky's deep structures, for instance in his critique of fixed word meanings (The Meaning of a Word). Explain Austin's analysis of ‘real’ in Sense and Sensibilia as an example of context-dependent semantics versus Chomsky's focus on syntax-driven meaning. Structure the results as a juxtaposition of speech-act models versus rule-based models, including quotations and a comparison of methods.” |
<AXIOLOGISCH /> |
This tag establishes an axiological perspective in which the AI examines texts for intrinsic/instrumental values, moral properties, and the phenomenological perception of value (e.g. “goodness” as an independent category). | “Compare Nicolai Hartmann's Ethics (stratification of objective values) with David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature (ethics as an empiricism of feelings): Analyze Hartmann's strata of value (e.g. pleasure, life, spirit) as ontologically independent entities versus Hume's reduction of moral judgments to sympathy and subjective sentiments. Examine how Hartmann defends intuitive value-perception as a source of knowledge, whereas Hume derives moral evidence from the observation of habitual reactions. Contrast Hartmann's conflicts of value (collisions of duty) with Hume's calculus of utility as a mechanism of resolution. Show why Hartmann treats ‘justice’ as an axiological a priori, whereas Hume regards it as a social construct (artificial virtue). Structure the juxtaposition as a table including the grounding of value, the method of cognition, and examples from the works.” |
A self-closing tag such as <ONTOLOGISCH /> can only indicate an ontological perspective in its basic outline – it does not yet constitute a complete corset of thought for the analysis. Only through a second step, namely the addition of strategic target words, is the perspective made conceptually, methodologically, argumentatively, and systematically precise. This perspective language must be developed and maintained in one's own individually adapted version of the PTL. The following table, together with the linked pages, is intended to help develop this language and build a well-founded set of analytical tools.
It is important to be clear about this: only at this point does the PTL truly become “p” – that is, philosophical. But what is at issue here is not philosophy as a mere body of knowledge, but rather philosophical competencies. The task consists in connecting the AI's knowledge of philosophical content with the AI's competencies in philosophical methods. Only then can the AI respond “philosophically”. The following table is the hinge of this competence-oriented PTL. It shows how one must make clear to the AI what is to be understood by different philosophical perspectives. For one thing is decisive: philosophy is irreducibly pluralistic – and precisely for this reason one must be able to formulate and justify one's perspective with precision.
Table 2: Self-closing and opening/closing PTL TAGs
| PTL | Self-closing TAG | PTL | Elements with opening and closing TAGs | Links to Philosophy in the TAG Structure |
|---|---|---|
<BEGRIFFSANALYSE /> |
<BEGRIFFSANALYSE>...</BEGRIFFSANALYSE> |
The Conceptual Perspective |
<ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE /> |
<ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE>...</ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE> |
The Ontological Perspective |
<ERKENNTNISTHEORETISCHEANALYSE /> |
<ERKENNTNISTHEORETISCHEANALYSE>...</ERKENNTNISTHEORETISCHEANALYSE> |
The Epistemological Perspective |
<EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE /> |
<EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE>...</EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE> |
The Epistemic Perspective |
<GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE /> |
<GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE>...</GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE> |
The Perspective of Validity |
<NORMATIVEANALYSE /> |
<NORMATIVEANALYSE>...</NORMATIVEANALYSE> |
The Normative Perspective |
<SEMANTISCHEANALYSE /> |
<SEMANTISCHEANALYSE>...</SEMANTISCHEANALYSE> |
The Semantic Perspective |
<AXIOLOGIEANALYSE /> |
<AXIOLOGIEANALYSE>...</AXIOLOGIEANALYSE> |
The Axiological Perspective |
Note on Usage:
The self-closing tags are used when a perspective or method is merely to be marked – that is, as an indication that a particular analytical focus is present, without explicitly enclosing a separate section.
The opening and closing tags, by contrast, make it possible to explicitly mark a particular section of text as being considered from a specific perspective. Example:
<ONTOLOGISCH>
The text claims that freedom is a property of the will that exists independently of external conditions.
</ONTOLOGISCH>
The links in the table lead to dedicated perspective pages that provide a basis for developing your own PTL TAGs. These pages contain a detailed prose version as well as a shorter, syntactically oriented version. You can adopt, adapt, and use these texts as templates in order to develop a prompt for your specific analytical task – for instance, for a seminar, a term paper, or a philosophical project.
It is important to prepare the final prompt in several layers:
- First, adopt the basic definitions and perspective texts from the linked pages.
- Then formulate your own objective and focus statements appropriate to your specific analytical task.
- Finally, tailor the completed prompt to your specific analytical objective – for example, by supplementing the tag
<AXIOLOGIEANALYSE>...</AXIOLOGIEANALYSE>with targeted questions, examples, or topics to be addressed in the seminar. - Insert the textual result of your engagement with the chosen philosophical perspective (several perspectives can, of course, also be combined) into the code structure of your PTL instructions.
For the axiological analysis of ethical texts, this means specifically: Use the information on the Axiological Analysis page to create a basic framework. Expand it with specific questions relevant to the seminar context – for instance, concerning values, norms, moral principles, or the relationship between intrinsic and instrumental goods. Formulate these additions in such a way that the AI clearly understands your perspective and can focus the analysis accordingly.
Remember: in philosophy, there is no single objective method. Perspectives are pluralistic and must be precisely defined and reflected upon for each task. The PTL structure helps you carry out this specification methodically and systematically.