This paper is a reply to Eric Chelstrom's "Criticism of Cicovacki's The Analysis of Wonder." Chelstrom mostly critiques my reconstruction of the role of love and personality in Hartmann's philosophy. I offer a defense of my interpretation by illuminating how Hartmann's philosophical project differs from that of Kant. Although Hartmann does not sufficiently develop either his conception of love or his understanding of personality, I argue that both conceptions could be further elaborated and that they could serve as the ways to reintroduce Hartmann into the mainstream of the current philosophical discussion.