We are living under an ever-present threat of nuclear destruction; The Revolution Against War is the first step towards a new worldview. These selected writings by Robert S. Hartman, and edited by axiologist Clifford G. Hurst, outline cultural, political, and moral discussions on war and peace. Robert S. Hartman at the age of 23, escaped from Germany shortly after Hitler was elected to power in 1933. He spent his life learning and teaching in a variety of (...) fields as a philosopher, business consultant, writer, activist, economist, ethicist, and mathematician. (shrink)

Wit, it can be said, is the compact expression of wisdom. Robert S. Hartman wrote with both wit and wisdom. Many times, though, his wit gets buried in demanding and lengthy prose. In this book, we have extracted the wit from the wisdom of a selection of Hartman's writing so that more of the world can learn from this man's genius. It's a quote book. It consists entirely of Hartman's own words. But, in small doses. We (...) have pulled vital ideas, thoughtful considerations, and clever remarks from six of Hartman's published pieces plus two heretofore unpublished manuscripts that are soon to be published by the Hartman Institute. We present these quotes in an order that, we believe, best tells the story of formal axiology. (shrink)

Formal axiology, as does every scientific system, stems from the unfolding of its axiom or axioms. The axiom of formal axiology is the following: Value is the degree in which a thing fulfills the attributes contained in the intension of its concept. "Fulfillment" means the possession by a thing of a set of properties corresponding to the set of attributes in the intension of its concept. A thing is good if it possesses all the properties in question. The development of (...) this axiom constitutes an axiological system, which establishes the dimensions of value, a hierarchy of value, a language of value and a logic of value. (shrink)

This book presents Robert S. Hartman's formal theory of value and critically examines many other twentieth century value theorists in its light, including A.J. Ayer, Kurt Baier, Brand Blanshard, Paul Edwards, Albert Einstein, William K. Frankena, R.M. Hare, Nicolai Hartmann, Martin Heidegger, G.E. Moore, P.H. Nowell-Smith, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Charles Stevenson, Paul W. Taylor, Stephen E. Toulmin, and J.O. Urmson. Open Access funding for this volume has been provided by the Robert S. Hartman Institute.

Robert S. Hartman; XIII—The Definition of Good: Moore's Axiomatic of the Science of Ethics, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 65, Issue 1, 1 June.

The reason for this spell--which was already felt in Anselm's life time-cannot be solely Anselm's subject matter, for this has been treated by many before and after with less than intriguing effects. It must be, to a large degree, his method. But what can there be so exciting about a logical demonstration?

“The age-long endeavour to find an intellectual basis for ethics is an enterprise of such importance, and of such difficulty, that any explorer of that country must always be glad to hear the voices of his fellow-travellers. ‘This,’ Wittgenstein once said to me, ‘is a terrible business—just terrible! You can at best stammer when you talk of it.’”With these words Waddington introduces his symposium Science and Ethics, a “communal, perhaps even co-operative stammering,” as he calls it. Also the present contribution (...) to the “terrible business” cannot be more than a stammering; The business is so terrible today not only because of its inherent difficulties, but because of the tremendous odds which are at stake. When the Renaissance philosophers built the science of material nature they were fired by an enthusiasm of cosmic exploration. Today we are frozen in awe of a cosmic explosion. When Galileo pioneered his new science he knew that he was in the possession of the truth and that his opponents, steeped in error and superstition, would have to give way—eppur si muove! Today, building the science of ethics, we are neither equally sure nor equally confident. Our science is not yet formulated. Our opponents, though not right, may yet conquer before we have had time to develop the new science. We are not sure whether what was true for physics three hundred years ago is true for ethics today. (shrink)

Professor Everett W. Hall's new book, Modern Science and Human Values, one of the most important to have appeared in the field of Value Theory in the last ten years, shares in rich measure the common characteristic of so many other “prolegomena” to the future discipline of values: it is almost maddeningly frustrating. It sees with crystal clearness the essence of the scientific method and describes it in brilliant detail, from Galileo to Einstein; but it fails to draw a positive (...) moral for value theory. On the contrary, its thesis is thoroughly negative: although value must be known as thoroughly as fact if the world is to survive, the scientific method that has brought us knowledge of fact can never bring us knowledge of value. For fact and value are fundamentally different, fact is known by science in a way that excludes value, and hence, whatever may be the way by which value is to be known, it cannot be science. It is true, science has given the most powerful and incisive formulation to fact while value theory has done nothing of the sort for value. Value theory, therefore, must be brought up to the level of science, otherwise there is danger that we may perish under the impact of science. But how to bring this about, how to construct a value theory as powerful and as representative of value as science is of fact, that is the question which the book can only ask but not answer. (shrink)

The conformity of mathematics and physics has so far been taken for granted. Philosophical explanations of that fundamental fact have never been satisfactory, mathematical explanations never had been attempted. In the following a fundamental theorem for the conformity of mathematics and physics will be demonstrated.Mathematics can be defined as the science of Number, physics as the science of Matter. The elementary constituents of mathematics are the prime numbers, those of matter the particles, particularly protons and electrons. The only essential property (...) of these elements as such is their existence, given within a given complex or space. Their fundamental relation is their distribution within their respective spaces. The theorem of the distribution of primes in the arithmetical series of numbers is the fundamental theorem of mathematics. The fundamental theorem of physics would be a theorem of the distribution of particles in geometrical space. If it were shown that both theorems were equal, the essential conformity of mathematics and physics would be mathematically demonstrated. (shrink)