Hefner's Playboy Philosophy: Korihor in Velvet
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:24 pm
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).
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).