Hartmann's Realist Ontology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Translator’sIntroduction: Hartmann’sRealistOntology 1Hartmann in Context Despite an international upsurge of interest in the philosophyofNicolai Hart- mann (1882–1950) in recent years, his work is still almost completelyunknown to the English-languagephilosophical audience.Widelyrespected duringhis life- time, he was roughlythe same ageaspositivists Moritz Schlick and Otto Neu- rath, the existentialist Karl Jaspers, Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain, and the Spaniard Jose OrtegayGasset.Neo-Kantian Ernst Cassirer and phenomenol- ogistMax Scheler wereeight years older than Hartmann, while the philosophical rock stars of the twentieth century,Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, wereseven years youngerthan him (Harich2004,6). In his own era, he was not unknown to those in the English-speaking philosophical landscape with some interest in Continental philosophy. In his 1930 survey of Germanphiloso- phy, the youngDeweyan-Marxist Sidney Hook claimed that Hartmann was “in- teresting without being oracular,instructive without pedantry,and profound without being obscure,” and predicted that he “will soon be greeted as Germa- ny’sleading philosopher” (Hook 1930,156–57). It is no doubt difficult for readers to imagine that someonesocompletelyunknown todaymight have been consid- ered by anyone to be a “leadingphilosopher” of the time. Hartmannwas of Baltic German descent and an independent thinker who decisively struck out on his own in his groundbreaking 1921 Grundzüge einer Met- aphysik der Erkenntnis (Basic Features of the Metaphysics of Cognition)wherehe repudiated the Neo-Kantianism of his former teachers Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp in Marburg. The fact that he wroteenormous systematic works with an analytical style and with athorough familiarity with the history of philosophy made him not easilyclassifiable. While he appreciatedand appropriated aspects of the phenomenological approach of the earlyEdmund Husserland the Munich circle, phenomenologyremained for him one important method for philosophy among others, and most definitelynot aphilosophythat was completeinitself. Although he admired Max Scheler’sdevelopment of a “material value ethics” and his metaphysical vision, he refused to accept anymetaphysics that he saw as basicallyteleological in orientation, and he held controversiallythat ethics had to be atheistic.While he respected the techniquesand findingsofhistoricists like Wilhelm Dilthey,herefused to accept the relativism that they often imply, and instead upheld the notion of the gradual historicalgrowth of human knowl- edge.Arelatively conservative bourgeois intellectual of the Weimar republic in https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110627350-001 XVI Translator’sIntroduction: Hartmann’sRealist Ontology the period of his earlyoutput,like manyofhis generation he looked with dismay on the rapidlyindustrializing, culture-destroyingcapitalist society of the day. The fact that on the eveofWWII this well-known professor at the University of Berlin refusedtobegin his seminars with the mandated “Heil Hitler” is testi- monytothe fact thathedid not think much of “the inner truth and greatness” of National Socialism as asolution to this culturalcrisis.¹ One of the most prominent but poorly understood features of earlytwentieth century Continental philosophywas arenewal of interest in ontology and meta- physics following the decline of Neo-Kantianism. Hook’sprediction that Hart- mann would become Germany’sleading philosopher wasnever realized, as Hart- mann’simpressive work was soon eclipsed by that of his younger contemporary, Martin Heidegger. There is good reason to believethat Hartmann, however,was the most significant figure in this revival of ontology,orthe “turn of contempo- rary philosophytoontology and to realism.”² One of the best interpreters of Hart- mann’sphilosophyand aformerstudent,the late WolfgangHarich, posed the question “who should be credited with the title ‘founderofthe new ontology’ in the twentieth century?” On the basis of the chronologyoftheirpublications it looks like Heideggershould getcredit for this, since Being and Time was pub- lished in Husserl’s Jahrbuch in 1927,while Hartmann’sfirst major ontological text,translated here as Ontology:Laying the Foundations,did not appear until 1935.Harich points out thatthis superficial chronology overlooksthe fact that the “fundamental ideas for his ontology” alreadymake an appearance in Hart- mann’s1921 Metaphysics of Cognition,and are also “the central theme of his con- tribution to the Festschrift for Paul Natorp of 1923” (Harich 2004,163).³ The full title of the essayjustreferred to reads “How is Critical OntologyPossible? Toward the Foundation of the General Theory of the Categories, Part One,” and Harich notes that in the subtitle one can see that Hartmann is alreadydealing with the essential themeofhis 1940 Aufbau der realen Welt (TheStructure of the This anecdotecomes from Cicovacki 2002,3.For one view of Hartmann’srelation to National Socialism, see Sluga1993. The phrase “inner truth and greatness” comesfromHeidegger’s1935 Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger2000). This was the theme of the 1931 Kant-Gesellschaft meetingwhich featured alecturebyHart- mann (Zum Problem der Realitätsgegebenheit)and critical commentary by some of the leading figures of the day. It is reprinted in Hartungand Wunsch 2014,177–264. Harich goes further to claim that Being and Time had Hartmann’sapproach to ontologyasone of its major targets, and that oppositiontoHartmann forms the subtext of manyofthe discus- sions throughout the book in footnotes and other passages where Hartmann is not mentioned by name. He also remarks that Hartmann, after movingontoKöln, read Being and Time in full awareness that he was one of the targets of the critique leveled in it,and that in Laying the Foun- dations (and other works) he “struck back” against Heidegger(Harich 2004,166). 1Hartmann in Context XVII Real World), itself subtitled “Outline of General Category Theory.” While Harich does not mention it,wecould alsoadd that another essaycalled “Categorial Laws” and again subtitled “Toward the Foundation of aGeneral Theory of Cat- egories” is published in 1926 in the Philosophischer Anzeiger.⁴ Even more than the first essay, whose aim is the largely critical task of revealing and correcting errors,the second essaydevelops what becomes Hartmann’smost original con- tribution to the history of ontology,the description of second-order “categorial laws” or “laws of stratification” that displaythe overall “structure of the real world.” We therefore agree with Harich that Hartmann deserves the credit as “founder of the new ontology.”⁵ While Hartmann mayhavefollowed through on the project of developing anew ontology thatcould shed new light on prob- lems in all of traditionaldisciplines more than anyone else at the time, there is no doubtwhose so-called “fundamental ontology” became dominant. We can look to Harich again to getsome sense of whyHook might have be- lieved Hartmann was destined for greater renown. Harich claimed that of all his better-known contemporaries listed above, Hartmann’s “lifelong achievements are greater and more universal.” This is because Hartmann “is the onlyone of all of them, for the lasttime in the twentieth century,tohavecarefullycreated asystematic philosophythat covered all of the traditionaldisciplines. If we com- pare him with historical figures,hecomes closest to Aristotle in terms of system- atic breadth and depth, or even Hegel in Modern times, and in the feudal period, Aquinas” (Harich 2004,6). With regard to his writing and thinking,Hook assert- ed that “no one can read [Hartmann] without being filled with highexcitement, for he develops with astonishingskill the dramatic conflict of principles involved in every genuine philosophicalproblem” (Hook 1930,157). Harich described Hartmannasaphilosopher “skilled at subtle analyses,” with “the capacity to or- ganize an incrediblywide rangeofmaterial meticulously,” as well as someone who “knows how to masterfullydeal with traditionalideas and productively take them further.” He claimed that the “anxious longingfor originality is for- “Kategoriale Gesetze,” reprinted in Hartungand Wunsch 2014,123–176. It is also necessary to takeinto accountthe other contributors to the revivification of the on- tological tradition at the time, and to consider Hartmann’srelation to them. As he claims in the Preface below,while others “announced” the coming of anew ontology,inhis own estimation Hartmann was the onlyone to have actually “carried it out.” Thereissome justification for this belief, as his four volumes of ontology alone span morethan 2000 pages. In this context he mentions HedwigConrad-Martius,Günther Jakoby, Alexius Meinong, Max Scheler,Heidegger, Hans Pichler,and Emil Lask. Pichler is singled out as someone who “strengthened [Hartmann’s] conviction that [he] was on the right track,” but he toodid not develop the new ontology. On the often obscurerelationship between Hartmann’sviews and those of his contemporaries,see the very valuable workofMorgenstern 2012. XVIII Translator’sIntroduction: Hartmann’sRealist Ontology eign to him,” while “his writing is free of affectation and artificiality,and […]is eminently clear,elegant,and nevertheless powerful. His books are easy to read despite the fact that they deal with highlycomplex problems of tremendous scope” (Harich 2004,Ibid.). Such highpraise should help to motivate readers to tackle Hartmann’stexts and reach their own conclusions about Hartmann’s place in the history