The Playboy Philosophy

[xxlt]

When I was a kid I was struck by the quality of the writing in Playboy. One valuable lesson I learned was that those people chortling about the guys who, "read Playboy for the articles," clearly had never read the magazine, or they would have known it was indeed well worth reading. Another example of, "It's not the things we know, it's the things we know that just ain't so..."

Anyway, as a kid I had the good fortune to read several excerpts from "The Playboy Philosophy," and found it interesting and surprisingly compelling. Now, I know some of you are readers of real philosophy and you might find the Playboy Philosophy a bit lightweight. But, I decided the other day to begin re-reading it and see if it struck me differently than it did years ago. So, here's a snippet from the couple hundred page meandering document (takes about 5 seconds to find it online if you want it):

a portion of Playboy's philosophy: "Playboy sincerely believes that this nation is big enough, strong enough and right enough to give free expression to the ideas and talents of every man among us without fear of being hurt by any man's individual weaknesses or follies. We believe, too, that no good idea, no important work of art and no meaningful talent becomes less good, less important or less meaningful because it comes from a doubtful source. You don't have to be a homosexual to read Oscar Wilde or an alcoholic and a drug addict to appreciate the prose and poetry of Edgar Allen Poe. It is also possible to recognize the comic genius of Chaplin, read an article on the Academy Awards by Dalton Trumbo and enjoy the music of Larry Adler without necessarily approving of either the men or their personal philosophies of life. For the record, of course, none of these men has ever been proven a Communist -- a matter of some importance in this country that prides itself on fair play and believing a man innocent until proven guilty. But that's really beside the point -- for we also appreciate Picasso as one of the world's greatest living artists, and we know he's a Communist. Politics may be important in government, where national security is a vital consideration, but it has no place in art and literature. Not if America's art and literature, and indeed the country itself, are to remain free."

Wondered if anyone else had read it or would take it up now and care to discuss it? Also wondered about reactions to the excerpt above? Thoughts?

[StoneTheCrow]

(12-11-2016, 12:29 PM)xxlt Wrote: When I was a kid I was struck by the quality of the writing in Playboy. One valuable lesson I learned was that those people chortling about the guys who, "read Playboy for the articles," clearly had never read the magazine, or they would have known it was indeed well worth reading. Another example of, "It's not the things we know, it's the things we know that just ain't so..."

Anyway, as a kid I had the good fortune to read several excerpts from "The Playboy Philosophy," and found it interesting and surprisingly compelling. Now, I know some of you are readers of real philosophy and you might find the Playboy Philosophy a bit lightweight. But, I decided the other day to begin re-reading it and see if it struck me differently than it did years ago. So, here's a snippet from the couple hundred page meandering document (takes about 5 seconds to find it online if you want it):

a portion of Playboy's philosophy: "Playboy sincerely believes that this nation is big enough, strong enough and right enough to give free expression to the ideas and talents of every man among us without fear of being hurt by any man's individual weaknesses or follies. We believe, too, that no good idea, no important work of art and no meaningful talent becomes less good, less important or less meaningful because it comes from a doubtful source. You don't have to be a homosexual to read Oscar Wilde or an alcoholic and a drug addict to appreciate the prose and poetry of Edgar Allen Poe. It is also possible to recognize the comic genius of Chaplin, read an article on the Academy Awards by Dalton Trumbo and enjoy the music of Larry Adler without necessarily approving of either the men or their personal philosophies of life. For the record, of course, none of these men has ever been proven a Communist -- a matter of some importance in this country that prides itself on fair play and believing a man innocent until proven guilty. But that's really beside the point -- for we also appreciate Picasso as one of the world's greatest living artists, and we know he's a Communist. Politics may be important in government, where national security is a vital consideration, but it has no place in art and literature. Not if America's art and literature, and indeed the country itself, are to remain free."

Wondered if anyone else had read it or would take it up now and care to discuss it? Also wondered about reactions to the excerpt above? Thoughts?

I guess my reaction to this would be a surprised one. Was I unsafe in assuming most people enjoyed the works and talents of, well, extremely talented people, without caring where they stood or how they acted personally?

Maybe I was. I just want the puppets to dance. I'm pretty conservative but that doesn't make Ricky Gervais not completely hilarious, for example. There are probably thousands of examples.

[xxlt]

(12-11-2016, 12:40 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: I guess my reaction to this would be a surprised one. Was I unsafe in assuming most people enjoyed the works and talents of, well, extremely talented people, without caring where they stood or how they acted personally?

Maybe I was. I just want the puppets to dance. I'm pretty conservative but that doesn't make Ricky Gervais not completely hilarious, for example. There are probably thousands of examples.

A little context: Playboy debuted in 1953. This excerpt was written circa 1960-1962. The country was still emerging from McCarthyism. The first two chapters of the Playboy Philosophy (henceforth PP) offer an interesting analysis of the American psyche from 1900-1960. So, at that time, yes separating the art from the person was a radical idea. Even today, it is for some. I know many, for example, who won't watch a Woody Allen film because of his marriage to Soon Yi Previn. The PP was expanded and reprinted in part in issues in the 1970's - 1990's and I always found it interesting. It is often written in response to contemporary criticism rather than as a position/statement paper, but still worth a look, perhaps. 

[fredtoast]

I like the part about titties.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2016, 12:29 PM)xxlt Wrote: When I was a kid I was struck by the quality of the writing in Playboy. One valuable lesson I learned was that those people chortling about the guys who, "read Playboy for the articles," clearly had never read the magazine, or they would have known it was indeed well worth reading. Another example of, "It's not the things we know, it's the things we know that just ain't so..."

Anyway, as a kid I had the good fortune to read several excerpts from "The Playboy Philosophy,"  and found it interesting and surprisingly compelling. Now, I know some of you are readers of real philosophy and you might find the Playboy Philosophy a bit lightweight. But, I decided the other day to begin re-reading it and see if it struck me differently than it did years ago. So, here's a snippet from the couple hundred page meandering document (takes about 5 seconds to find it online if you want it):

a portion of Playboy's philosophy: "Playboy sincerely believes that this nation is big enough, strong enough and right enough to give free expression to the ideas and talents of every man among us without fear of being hurt by any man's individual weaknesses or follies. We believe, too, that no good idea, no important work of art and no meaningful talent becomes less good, less important or less meaningful because it comes from a doubtful source. You don't have to be a homosexual to read Oscar Wilde or an alcoholic and a drug addict to appreciate the prose and poetry of Edgar Allen Poe. It is also possible to recognize the comic genius of Chaplin, read an article on the Academy Awards by Dalton Trumbo and enjoy the music of Larry Adler without necessarily approving of either the men or their personal philosophies of life. For the record, of course, none of these men has ever been proven a Communist -- a matter of some importance in this country that prides itself on fair play and believing a man innocent until proven guilty. But that's really beside the point -- for we also appreciate Picasso as one of the world's greatest living artists, and we know he's a Communist. Politics may be important in government, where national security is a vital consideration, but it has no place in art and literature. Not if America's art and literature, and indeed the country itself, are to remain free."

Wondered if anyone else had read it or would take it up now and care to discuss it? Also wondered about reactions to the excerpt above? Thoughts?

I loved their articles when I could find one to read, and the interviews.  I still have the John Lennon interview one stored away.

[xxlt]

(12-11-2016, 02:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: I loved their articles when I could find one to read, and the interviews.  I still have the John Lennon interview one stored away.

I found almost every month, even if the interview subject was someone I had little interest in, the interview was an excellent read. 

[Bengalzona]

I liked the writing in "Hustler" better.

"Dear Hustler, my co-ed roommate/lesbian lover and I were walking down the street one day...."

[Dill]

(12-11-2016, 12:29 PM)xxlt Wrote: a portion of Playboy's philosophy: "Playboy sincerely believes that this nation is big enough, strong enough and right enough to give free expression to the ideas and talents of every man among us without fear of being hurt by any man's individual weaknesses or follies. We believe, too, that no good idea, no important work of art and no meaningful talent becomes less good, less important or less meaningful because it comes from a doubtful source. You don't have to be a homosexual to read Oscar Wilde or an alcoholic and a drug addict to appreciate the prose and poetry of Edgar Allen Poe. It is also possible to recognize the comic genius of Chaplin, read an article on the Academy Awards by Dalton Trumbo and enjoy the music of Larry Adler without necessarily approving of either the men or their personal philosophies of life. For the record, of course, none of these men has ever been proven a Communist -- a matter of some importance in this country that prides itself on fair play and believing a man innocent until proven guilty. But that's really beside the point -- for we also appreciate Picasso as one of the world's greatest living artists, and we know he's a Communist. Politics may be important in government, where national security is a vital consideration, but it has no place in art and literature. Not if America's art and literature, and indeed the country itself, are to remain free."

Wondered if anyone else had read it or would take it up now and care to discuss it? Also wondered about reactions to the excerpt above? Thoughts?

Playboy made point of including good fiction and non-fiction. Also, the interviews were often of historical import--e.g., with Castro, Norman Mailer, Jimmy Carter, Muhammad Ali, Lincoln Rockwell.  The philosophy never impressed me much. Just progressive liberalism before the civil rights movement embraced women, gays, and immigrants.  They embraced counter-cultural fashions and supported de-criminalization of marijuana, if not the cultural critique of excess consumption. It was the kind of magazine in the late 60s and early 70s with that one common denominator that could be enjoyed by people as different as Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2016, 04:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I liked the writing in "Hustler" better.

"Dear Hustler, my co-ed roommate/lesbian lover and I were walking down the street one day...."

This kind of thing never happens to me, but.....

[BengalHawk62]

I always looked for the little hidden bunny on every cover before I would open up any magazine.  If I couldn't find the bunny, I wouldn't look inside. 

[xxlt]

(12-11-2016, 04:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I liked the writing in "Hustler" better.

"Dear Hustler, my co-ed roommate/lesbian lover and I were walking down the street one day...."

Perfect caption for the picture in your sig, lol! 

[xxlt]

(12-11-2016, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Playboy made point of including good fiction and non-fiction. Also, the interviews were often of historical import--e.g., with Castro, Norman Mailer, Jimmy Carter, Muhammad Ali, Lincoln Rockwell.  The philosophy never impressed me much. Just progressive liberalism before the civil rights movement embraced women, gays, and immigrants.  They embraced counter-cultural fashions and supported de-criminalization of marijuana, if not the cultural critique of excess consumption. It was the kind of magazine in the late 60s and early 70s with that one common denominator that could be enjoyed by people as different as Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

Progressive liberalism always impresses me, especially when it is 40 years ahead of the curve. 

Your take raises the question, are Trump and Clinton as different as they seem? Perhaps not. Perhaps both are smart, self-indulgent centrists, whose own appetites are their undoing. Of course one is better at hiding the smarts than the other, although BC does a pretty good folksy aw shucks too. 

[xxlt]

(12-12-2016, 04:12 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I always looked for the little hidden bunny on every cover before I would open up any magazine.  If I couldn't find the bunny, I wouldn't look inside. 

I remember that convention, although for years I was unaware of it. I saw a Mad magazine at the counter the other day. I think Mad and Playboy did some of the most creative covers and had some of the best staff writers for as long as I can remember. 

[xxlt]

Another interesting excerpt:

In the Thirties and Forties Hollywood movies were never allowed to show a man and a woman in bed together -- not even if they were married in the picture -- not even if they were married in real life. If a scene had to be played in a bedroom, the couple appeared in that blight upon marital bliss: twin beds. In the same period, if a woman were to have an illicit affair in a film (which meant any relationship not blessed by matrimony), the audience could be certain that before the final scene she would suffer the severest possible consequences. That some romances outside holy wedlock end happily or do not end at all would appear to be facts of life the movies of 20 and 30 years ago preferred to ignore. And the worst profanity heard in a film during more than a decade of picture making was Clark Gable's parting shot, "Personally, my dear, I don't give a damn!" to Scarlett O'Hara at the end of Gone With the Wind. GWTW was the only motion picture of the time that was allowed a single hell or damn (the line never failed to produce a titter from surprised audiences), and we tend to forget for how short a while such common expletives have been permitted in dramatic shows on television.
In 1938 an issue of Life magazine was banned in a number of communities in the United States, because it included a picture story depicting the birth of a baby. That was just 25 years ago. And it has been less than ten since New York City censored the birth of a baby buffalo from one of Walt Disney's award-winning wildlife features. Today Ben Casey delivers a baby on home TV and nobody even blinks.

*****
I wonder if some of our younger members realize how repressed our culture was in the not so distant past.

[GMDino]

(12-13-2016, 11:40 AM)xxlt Wrote: Another interesting excerpt:

In the Thirties and Forties Hollywood movies were never allowed to show a man and a woman in bed together -- not even if they were married in the picture -- not even if they were married in real life. If a scene had to be played in a bedroom, the couple appeared in that blight upon marital bliss: twin beds. In the same period, if a woman were to have an illicit affair in a film (which meant any relationship not blessed by matrimony), the audience could be certain that before the final scene she would suffer the severest possible consequences. That some romances outside holy wedlock end happily or do not end at all would appear to be facts of life the movies of 20 and 30 years ago preferred to ignore. And the worst profanity heard in a film during more than a decade of picture making was Clark Gable's parting shot, "Personally, my dear, I don't give a damn!" to Scarlett O'Hara at the end of Gone With the Wind. GWTW was the only motion picture of the time that was allowed a single hell or damn (the line never failed to produce a titter from surprised audiences), and we tend to forget for how short a while such common expletives have been permitted in dramatic shows on television.
In 1938 an issue of Life magazine was banned in a number of communities in the United States, because it included a picture story depicting the birth of a baby. That was just 25 years ago. And it has been less than ten since New York City censored the birth of a baby buffalo from one of Walt Disney's award-winning wildlife features. Today Ben Casey delivers a baby on home TV and nobody even blinks.

*****
I wonder if some of our younger members realize how repressed our culture was in the not so distant past.

And still is.

Unless its blood and guts.  Those are aokay.

[xxlt]

And one more:


Americans were so generally embarrassed by sex in the early part of this century that sex statutes still standing in some of our states do not even define the behavior or activity they prohibit. The legislators were seemingly able to spell out fornication and/or adultery with only an occasional blush, but when they moved into the slightly more exotic areas of fellatio, cunnilingus and pederasty, it appears that some of them broke into a cold sweat and were just too intimidated by the entire subject to explain what offenses the laws were intended to cover. Thus, in place of the specific, the state statutes prohibit "vile and contemptible crimes against nature."


****

Interesting too that this commentary is interwoven with a lot of championing of capitalism like this:

Maurice Stans, president of the nation's largest bank holding corporation, and author of a nationally syndicated newspaper column on business and government, recently wrote: "What we have in American free enterprise is an almost perfect blending of the forces that motivate people. It combines equality of opportunity and freedom of choice with our dominant individual traits of acquisitiveness and competitiveness."
If we were looking for additional evidence of the merits of the free enterprise system, we couldn't ask for much more dramatic proof than East and West Berlin today. The contrast between the two halves of that once whole city -- one rebuilding under a democratic free economy and the other under Communist socialism -- says more than any business or financial expert ever could. And so do the East Berliners scrambling to escape over and under the hated wall that separates the two sectors.
There's another bit of negative evidence here in the U.S. that deserves a comment, too. During the Depression of the Thirties, this country came as close to socialism as it ever has, with the government creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for the unemployed. During that period, the optimism, initiative and competitive spirit that supply a unique spark to our free enterprise system disappeared. As a result, this country literally stood still for ten long years and dragged its heels for another ten -- not just economically, but in almost every area of activity. We're feeling the effect of it now in the race for space. Russia used that generation to pull ahead of us in missile research and to shorten the gap between the two countries in many other areas. Where socialism has failed her -- as it has in many areas -- Russia has introduced various capitalistlike incentives. But one thing Russia has been unable to supply to its program is the spark that only a free society has. It can make the difference.

*****

Obviously I disagree with that economic analysis.

[xxlt]

Fits right in with some of our other P&R discussions:

Dean Joseph O'Meara of the Notre Dame Law School expressed it like this: "Unfortunately many sincere people do not comprehend the genius of our democracy...such people would deny free speech to those with whom they are in fundamental disagreement.... They would establish a party line in America -- their party line, of course. This is an alien concept, a totalitarian concept; it is not consonant with the American tradition; it is antidemocratic; it is, in short, subversive and it should be recognized for what it is."
And another eminent Catholic, President John F. Kennedy, then a senator from Massachusetts, summed up the matter in these prophetic words: "The lock on the door of the legislature, the parliament or the assembly hall, by order of the King, the Commissar or the Fhrer, has historically been followed or preceded by a lock on the door of the printer's, the publisher's, or the bookseller's."

[xxlt]

(12-13-2016, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: And still is.

Unless its blood and guts.  Those are aokay.

True.