The Playboy Philosophy

[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.