John Smith

The backlash against the Olympic Games reflects the failure of the major global institutions in dealing with the social and ethical consequences of globalisation in areas such as the environment, poverty, terrorism and natural disasters. Disillusionment with the Olympic Games mirrors the disenchantment with the perceived values of globalisation, including winning at any price, commercial exploitation by MNCs, intense national rivalry, cronyism, cheating and corruption and the competitive advantage of advanced nations. How could the Olympic Movement reverse this perception? The most important change would be in the area of leadership. Revitalising the Olympic spirit will require a revolution at the IOC. Character, credibility and communication will be the critical success factors. Before appointing the next President of the IOC, there is an exciting opportunity to reconceptualise the Games as a platform for building a framework of global values to counter-balance the naked economic priorities currently dictating the pattern of globalisation. In reinventing the Olympic Games, it is important to recognise that the modern Games are based upon an anachronism. The idea that amateur sport is both the key to individual moral development and world harmony is largely an invention of the British aristocracy, whereas the original Greek Games not only celebrated the classical ideal of `a sound mind in a sound body', but also involved professional athletes and commercial activity. In making the Olympic Charter relevant to the 21st century, and in making the Olympics more than just a speculator sporting event, there is a strong case for the Games to include a wider spectrum of activities, including arts programs and policy forums, which address the well-being of all humanity in a competitive global economy.

Before dealing directly with the content of Urban's thought, there remains to be singled out one of its general traits, a grasp of which is absolutely necessary for any understanding of his thought. From the beginning, Urban's philosophy has exhibited a refusal to accept any ultimate impasse in thought. His is the understanding or irenic type of view over against the one-sided or polemic type. For him, reason is always comprehensive enough to sustain differences of opinion, and it is able, if one goes deeply enough, to show the relativity of all exclusive oppositions in philosophical thought. There is an almost Hegelian passion for synthesis in his dogged attempts to get beyond certain disagreements between philosophical positions. It was his wont to regard impasses in thought as futile in the precise sense that neither side is able to refute the other simply because there is a sense in which both are right and both are wrong. Many illustrations from the writings of what might be called this "transcending" approach can be given: in History he seeks to show the two-fold nature of sufficient reason as both logical and ontological and approves of Kant's attempt to establish a mediating position beyond both; in Valuation the attempt is made to get "beyond the dichotomy of 'appreciation' and 'description' "; in Intelligible the view is taken that logical values are neither "existent" nor "subsistent" but "simply valid" which view is said to be beyond special ontological prejudices; in Humanity Urban is concerned to show that the religious tradition of the West has been beyond the ultimate antithesis of pure deity or mere humanity and that an indissoluble relation between the two has always been acknowledged and accepted; the attempt to get "beyond" occupies, of course, the whole of Beyond, and need not be singled out for special attention at this juncture. These illustrations are only a few of many; in calling attention to this general trait, however, it must not be thought that anything more is intended than the emphasizing of a singularly important feature of Urban's thought. Such a trait, howsoever clearly understood, would still leave us far from an adequate comprehension of his idealism; but without taking it into account his views will often appear to lack sharpness and conviction. All that can be said is that these are some of the disadvantages of a harmonizing or transcending position.

Hartmann's development was long and complex. Moreover, it is not easy to follow, and the path leading to the end passes through volumes of considerable scope and length. Apart from his Ethics which has had wide circulation among English speaking philosophers, Hartmann's other works are not very well known. Der Aufbau der Realen Welt first appeared in 1940, and represents the third part of his Ontologie; Zur Grundlegung der Ontologie, 1935, constitutes the first part; Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit, 1938, the second; and Philosophie der Natur, 1950, the fourth. The small volume Neue Wege der Ontologie was written in 1941 and appeared in Systematische Philosophie; it was printed separately in 1947 and again in 1949. Teleologisches Denken was completed in 1944, but was not published until 1951. Apparently Hartmann intended it to be published after the appearance of the Philosophie der Natur which was delayed until 1950.