 He became professor at Marburg in 1920, and then came to occupy Natorp’s Chair in 1922. Hartmann was called to Köln, where Scheler was teaching, in 1924, where he taught until 1931. There he met his second wife, Frida Hartmann (née Rosenfeld), in the “discussion circle” of philosophy students and professors that he hosted at his own home throughout his entire career (Fischer and Hartung 2020). He was appointed professor in Berlin in 1931, as the “safer” choice in contrast to both Heidegger and Cassirer, who were also candidates for the post (Gerhardt et al. 2015). After the Second World War, Hartmann was elected President of the German Philosophical Association for both the acknowledged value of his philosophical ideas and his apparent lack of any improper compromise with Nazism. (For more complete biographical information, see Harich 2000, Heiss 1961, and F. Hartmann 1978.) While Hartmann’s presence and influence were strong during his lifetime, after his death in 1950 his ideas attracted no further attention. It is difficult to determine why things have gone this way. Even researchers of Neo-Kantianism have completely ignored Hartmann’s work, despite his intellectual biography and the fact that his work shares numerous features with both Marburg and Southwestern Neo-Kantianism (see, e.g., Luft 2015; De Warren and Staiti 2015). Although lack of translations into English and the working of “selective memory” (Beiser 2014) have certainly played their part, other reasons are needed to explain this situation. Hartmann has likely been ignored by scholars of Continental philosophy not least because, historically and politically, Heidegger came to dominate German philosophy and was antagonistic to him, seeing the older Hartmann as one of his chief rivals. Concerted historical research is needed to understand this state of neglect.