[Basic] Skill of the week: Philosophy

[pawsplay]

I would rate Plato's Politics skill higher, rated for his influence more than his overall success. Many ambitious, and skilled, politicians, come to bad ends.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Again, the definition of the GURPS skill of Politics is quite explicitly "the practical day-to-day art of being a politician and getting on in politics".

That's why I suggested that, e.g., Politics (Machiavellianism) would be focused more towards the “street smarts” take on it, while Philosophy (Machiavellianism) is more book learning.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

That's why I suggested that, e.g., Politics (Machiavellianism) would be focused more towards the “stress smarts” take on it, while Philosophy (Machiavellianism) is more book learning.

Then there is Odious Personal Habit (Machiavellianism) . . .

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Then there is Odious Personal Habit (Machiavellianism) . . .

That should be Secret. A proper Machiavellian would be able to avoid being perceived as such. Unless he does it with such style that he is admired for it in which case it would also not be OPH, but reputation (political genius).

[dataweaver]

I think the whole point of the OPH version is that the person in question isn't actually particularly good at it.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

A proper Machiavellian would be able to avoid being perceived as such. Unless he does it with such style that he is admired for it in which case it would also not be OPH, but reputation (political genius).

Or the reaction bonus for the Smooth Operator talent.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That should be Secret. A proper Machiavellian would be able to avoid being perceived as such. Unless he does it with such style that he is admired for it in which case it would also not be OPH, but reputation (political genius).

And yet, I've known several people who bragged about being Machiavellian. Machiavelli of course would suggest you portray yourself as being altruistic, yet also slightly scary.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

And yet, I've known several people who bragged about being Machiavellian.

Were they actually any good at it, or were they just trying to overawe the ignorant?

[Eukie]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

The other two books are about how political systems ought to work, not how it is.

Capital is an attempt to describe how capitalism works: how it is. How things ought to work is more the content of his other works, like The Communist Manifesto. (Though strictly speaking, much of Marx' work on how communism ought to work didn't really view it as an "ought" as much as a "will", because he thought communism was an inevitable development of capitalism.) It's not as directly instructional as The Prince, but as a foundation for a course in GURPS-Politics it'd cover a bunch of things about where power lies (capital) and trying to identify groups that can be made to act towards some supposed common interest (the proletariat).

How useful that is sort of depends on how much faith you put in Marx' dialectical materialism and economic analysis, but then, there's been a lot of criticism of The Prince as being a relevant political text both today and when it was written.

Capital is probably more relevant to GURPS-Economics, though, since it's a theory of economics.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Eukie

Capital is an attempt to describe how capitalism works: how it is.

I'm inclined to say neither Capital or The Prince is actually philosophy as GURPS understands the term -- Capital is sociology, The Prince is expert (political science).