CRITICAL NEGLECT OF AYN RAND'S THEORY OF ART, pp. 1-46

MICHELLE MARDER KAMHI and LOUIS TORRES analyze the scant critical and scholarly attention that has been devoted to Rand's aesthetic theory by other writers since its publication more than a quarter-century ago. They argue that, with few exceptions, Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike have tended to misinterpret and undervalue Rand's philosophy of art which (owing in part to Rand's own emphasis) has not been sufficiently distinguished from her theory of Romantic literature. They also point to infelicities of style that have impeded serious consideration of her ideas.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS:  AYN RAND AND VLADIMIR NABOKOV, pp. 47-67

D. BARTON JOHNSON traces the parallel lives and literary origins of two Russo-American writers: Ayn Rand and Vladimir Nabokov. Born in Saint Peterburg six years apart, they overlapped on the New York Times bestsellers list in the late fifties. While Nabokov's Russian cultural roots have been much explored, Rand's were little realized prior to Chris Matthew Sciabarra's investigation of her Russian philosophical context. Nabokov and Rand represent polar examples of their cultural heritage: for Nabokov, the aesthetically-oriented tradition of the modernist Russian Symbolists; for Rand, the social-utilitarian tradition of Nikolai Chernyshevsky, and later, Maxim Gorky, founder of Socialist Realism.

AYN RAND AND THE METAPHYSICS OF KANT, pp. 69-103

GEORGE V. WALSH examines the differences and similarities between Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand in the area of metaphysics. He presents Kant's premises and conclusions on the major issues and provides a detailed discussion of Rand's criticisms of Kant. Walsh argues that Rand has seriously misread Kant on several points. Her interpretation that Kant saw our sensory grasp of the world as "delusion," rather than knowledge, resembles that of Arthur Schopenhauer, except that the latter declares Kant's doctrine worthy of praise instead of condemnation.

REVIEWS

FLOURISHING OBJECTIVISM, pp. 105-15

LESTER HUNT reviews Tara Smith's Viable Values: A Study of the Root and Reward of Morality. He finds it an excellent contribution to the ongoing discussion of Objectivist ethics. Especially noteworthy, he says, are Smith's treatment of the concept of intrinsic value, her use of the concept of flourishing, and her treatment of the relations between the interests of different people. Though the book provides no sustained discussion of casuistical applications, epistemological assumptions, or potentially interesting side-issues, it raises many provocative questions that will fuel further debate.

THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL, pp. 117-30

MIMI REISEL GLADSTEIN views Douglas Den Uyl's The Fountainhead: An American Novel as a further sign of the growing scholarly interest in Ayn Rand's works. The volume, featured in the Twayne Masterwork Studies series, develops the thesis that the novel is quintessentially American, by virtue of its core individualist values. Gladstein argues that Den Uyl could have profited from engagement with more literary critiques of the novel, especially recent feminist perspectives, but she finds his reading a convincing one.

A PRIMER ON AYN RAND, pp. 131-35

AEON J. SKOBLE argues that Allan Gotthelf's new primer, On Ayn Rand, is a helpful survey of Rand's thought. Though it explains her theories systematically and offers a thorough treatment of her metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, however, it provides hardly any discussion of her political philosophy or aesthetics. It is also regrettable that the bibliography lacks references to the secondary literature, which, in a primer such as this, would have been very useful.

DISCUSSION

REPLY TO SECHREST:
ON THE ORIGINS OF GOVERNMENT, pp. 137-39

MARSHA F. ENRIGHT responds to Larry Sechrest's article "Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes" (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Fall 1999). She examines the social forces that logically lead to the development of government, and the reasons for geographical demarcations of governments.

REPLY TO SECHREST:
PRIVATE CONTRACT, MARKET NEUTRALITY, 
AND "THE MORALITY OF TAXATION", pp. 141-59

MURRAY I. FRANCK responds to Larry Sechrest's article "Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes" (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Fall 1999). Franck further develops his thesis that because minarchist government is essential to civil life including the market economy and because government requires material support to operate, taxation is moral. Against anarchist objections, Franck notes that taxation for legitimate purposes, though coercive, does not constitute the initiation of force.

REPLY TO SECHREST:
A MINOR FLAW, pp. 161-62

DANIEL UST argues that Larry Sechrest's valuable contribution ("Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes," Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Fall 1999) to the debate on anarchism uses certain "unobservables" to bolster the case against taxation in an uneven and contradictory manner.

REJOINDER TO ENRIGHT, FRANCK, THOMAS, AND UST:
TAXATION AND GOVERNMENT ARE STILL PROBLEMATIC, pp. 163-87

LARRY J. SECHREST replies to critics of his Fall 1999 Journal of Ayn Rand Studies article, "Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes." Sechrest argues that none of the critics provides an effective counterargument to his claim that all known taxing schemes redistribute income and wealth. Sechrest reviews some recent research, which strongly suggests that complex legal systems can exist and have existed without the benefit of being either established or enforced by government. He concludes that, insofar as the anarchy versus minarchy debate is concerned, the preponderance of evidence is on the side of anarchy.

REPLY TO CAMPBELL:
WHERE WERE THE COUNTING CROWS?, pp. 189-95

RICHARD SHEDENHELM responds to Robert Campbell's essay, "Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology" (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Fall 1999). He identifies the most likely source of the crow-counting experiment cited at the beginning of chapter seven of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. He finds that the crow study was not at all an experiment, but instead an anecdotal account dating from the eighteenth-century French writer of animal behavior, Charles-Georges Leroy.

REPLY TO BISSELL, CAMPBELL, AND JOHNSON:
THE STRANGE ATTRACTOR IN RANDIAN AESTHETICS, pp. 197-209

BARRY VACKER views The Fountainhead as unique in utopian literature, since it rejects the traditional vision of total planning for total order, in favor of a utopian vision expressed through the aesthetics of egoism and chaos. In particular, Howard Roark's buildings embrace the fractal forms being uncovered in the post-Newtonian sciences of chaos and complexity. As such, this suggests that the insights of chaos theory be integrated with Rand's theory of art and epistemology. Vacker argues that chaotic forms and processes should be placed at the center of a utopian cultural aesthetic that embraces strange attractors.

REJOINDER TO SHEDENHELM, THOMAS, AND VACKER:
IMPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY, EPISTEMOLOGY OF THE IMPLICIT, pp. 211-19

ROBERT L. CAMPBELL replies to commentary on his article, "Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology" (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Fall 1999). He comments briefly on Richard Shedenhelm's historical analysis of the "counting crows" experiment. He agrees with Barry Vacker's view that nonlinear dynamics are required in any analysis of skill and implicit knowledge, but contends that Rand's explicit epistemological formulations exclude these dynamics and prevent her from offering an adequate treatment of the implicit. Campbell also responds to Will Thomas's comments made in the journal, Navigator. He finds that Thomas has accepted the critical role that psychology must play in an epistemological theory of concepts.

REJOINDER TO VACKER:
ROCKIN' WITH RAND:
SAILING THE TURBULENT SEAS OF THE OBJECTIVIST AESTHETICS, pp. 221-27

ROGER E. BISSELL challenges Barry Vacker's claim that "aesthetics is at the core of Randian theory," even as he endorses Vacker's comments on the fractal aesthetics of Rand's Fountainhead. Bissell observes that "the actual fountainhead" of Rand's aesthetics is a certain metaphysical value-judgment, which he terms the Turbulent Universe, Pro-Effort Premise. He acknowledges Vacker's valuable insights about the demanding nature of the dynamic, chaotic processes in the world around us and explains how it is just another aspect of what Rand regards as the (conditional) "benevolence" of the universe.

REJOINDER TO THOMAS AND VACKER:
AYN RAND AND THE MASTERY OF NATURE, pp. 229-40

GREGORY R. JOHNSON argues, contra Barry Vacker, that reductionist thinking and nonlinear aesthetics are not mutually exclusive, and that the passages in The Fountainhead cited by Vacker actually support the mastery of nature thesis. Johnson also addresses some miscellaneous criticisms offered by William Thomas, who wrote a review of Johnson's "Liberty and Nature" (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Fall 1999) that appeared in Navigator.

    CONTACT US.
Copyright ©2007 by The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Foundation.   Printed in USA.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number, ISSN 1526-1018