Hefner's Playboy Philosophy: Korihor in Velvet

[Guest]

In another one of my recent pornography poll threads, brade mentioned, as regarding Hugh Hefner's short manifesto on what he terms that "playboy philosophy," that, regarding whether Hefner's assertions here form what I termed a "coherent understanding of the meaning of existence," from his perspective, "I'm not sure what a system of belief underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence is. I'd need to have a better understanding of what it is to be a system of belief underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence before I could say whether his Playboy Philosophy is that or not."

Pursuant to that, here are Hefner's statements on the matter, which I want to throw out here to everyone for some analysis vis-a-vis the original question as to wether this can be understood as the basis for a coherent view of the human condition and the teleological substance of our existence, or whether its really little more than a self serving pseudo-philosophical rationalization for Hefner's own particular psychological fixations and the lifestyle he wanted to live in pursuit of them.

http://brentdanley.com/blog/wp-content/ ... osophy.pdf

There's a great deal here for philosophical scrutiny (Hefner's dated reliance upon the long and thoroughly discredited work of Kinsey can be safely ignored as irrelevant, while what Hefner believes Kinsey's work establishes, which is quite close to what Kinsey himself wanted to establish through it, is of much more importance, as are his more general views regarding human sexuality).

[_Buffalo]

You sure are fascinated with pornography! I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

[_Droopy]

You sure are fascinated with pornography! I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

Yes, you don't need to read Hefner's stuff. As for required reading in your case, I would recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Grown-Up-Am ... 861&sr=8-1

[_gramps]

Looks like a good read.

Thanks for the link, Droopy!

[_bcspace]

You sure are fascinated with pornography! I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

The topic is perfectly cromulent. Perhaps you're uncomfortable discussing it?

[_Buffalo]

You sure are fascinated with pornography! I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

The topic is perfectly cromulent. Perhaps you're uncomfortable discussing it?

It's not the topic, which embiggens all good men. It's the obsessive posting of thread after thread about it.

[_Droopy]

You sure are fascinated with pornography! I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

The topic is perfectly cromulent.

Ain't it the truth?

[_Droopy]

It's not the topic, which embiggens all good men. It's the obsessive posting of thread after thread about it.

I'll probably continue to do them, periodically, until I can get an intellectually adult discussion going on the subject. Which, among other things, means without your participation.

[_moksha]

The topic is perfectly cromulent. Perhaps you're uncomfortable discussing it?

Wasn't cromulent the word used by William F. Buckley, where he suddenly had a smile and a faraway look in his eyes, then suddenly looked down at the front of his pants and remarked. "I seem to have soiled myself"?

.

[_Analytics]

You sure are fascinated with pornography! I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

Yes, you don't need to read Hefner's stuff.

I agree; utility is maximized by simply looking at it.