12-11-2016, 12:29 PM
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?
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?
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
