An intellectual starter kit
nationalreview.com
nationalreview.com
Being an intellectual isn't all navel-gazing, it's the necessary foundation to being able to properly communicate and wrestle with your own ideas. It's something that provides the underlying structure and skillset necessary to be a good thinker and good communicator, both of which will serve you well in your career and your relationships. It is not, as some other commenter put it, "to make yourself feel smart".
I am frankly a bit shocked to find anti-intellectualism to abound on Hacker News of all places. The core of intellectualism is curiosity, the same driving force behind the hacker spirit, and intellectualism at its base is closely aligned to the hacker ethos.
What works best, I think, is to go with what deeply interests you while periodically challenging yourself with things that are out of your comfort zone. This way you can start anywhere - in my case it was Harry Potter, but it can be anything else: LOTR, Stephen King, anything. A possible progression would look smth like: Harry Potter -> the Hobbit -> LOTR -> A Song of Ice and Fire etc. Each step is a bit more challenging than the previous. Once you get to ASOIAF the world is your oyster: you can focus on history, sociology etc.
Always challenge yourself, always approach things critically, always pursue things that spark your curiosity, not some static list of "great books". With enough time you'll get to some of the great books anyway, but you'll do it in a way that makes sense for you.
Also, use books as tools, make notes, fold pages etc. Buy cheap paperbacks, use them, re-use them. Become a professional learner, not a coffee-table "intellectual" full of other people's pre-digested ideas.
And, anyway, they are not anti-intellectuals; indeed the National Review is chock-full of ego-bruised Never Trumpists who proudly (if somewhat more quietly, now) champion their classical educations. Isn’t it doubly damning, then, to see them deploy their abilities in service of deceptive polemic?
But it might be time to acknowledge that the “Americans” the founders were talking about are a dead people that no longer exist. After all, more households in the 1950s had guns than today, but mass shootings were unheard of. Society is very different today and maybe that makes the Constitution obsolete. As James Madison wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Maybe we’re no longer such people and can no longer be trusted with the responsibilities the Constitution requires of us. In that case gun control makes total sense.
The problem is, how do you determine who can be trusted and who not?
Let's take NY for example. If I would move to upstate NY, I cannot possess or shoot a handgun for the next 4-10 years depending on the county application procedures (because of arbitrary rules related to how long you've lived in the county, number of references, how long they've lived there, how long they've known you, etc).
On paper, I'm the "perfect" person to allow to buy guns (if you're going to allow anyone to buy them): good job, stable relationships, no criminal record, no kids in the house, no mental health issues/records, good education, and extensive existing firearms training. If someone with my "profile" is, in effect, prevented from buying guns, then which regular citizens should be allowed to buy them? What more can the approving body (government) really ask for before the process is considered insane or abusive?
I mean the people as a whole. As a society, we are clearly losing the ability to self govern relative to prior generations.
Edit: I always find the type of argument in the parent comment to be intellectually dishonest. "You're not going to beat the US military, they have tanks and planes!". Sure, maybe, but can we agree that if we ever got to the point where the US military is killing civilians, that you might rather have a rifle than nothing?
A far better argument for gun control advocates, in my view, would be that (1) the Second Amendment doesn’t protect handguns, which aren’t weapons that would typically be used in war; and (2) the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude regulation that is consistent with being able to raise an armed militia from among citizens, like the Swiss have.
The problem is that a handgun ban is the least popular gun control measure, even though it would be the most effective. Only 20% of people supported a handgun ban in 2021: https://news.gallup.com/poll/357317/stricter-gun-laws-less-p...
You might be very disappointed to know that Swiss gun control is very very liberal. Permits for must guns are "shall issue", and with a little bit more work (e.g. a safe and a slight longer 2 page application) you can buy whatever you want, including new fully automatic weapons.
The implementation of Swiss-style gun laws would never work in the US, because they depend on the government not intentionally making things harder than they need to be (something the US is exceptional at, especially with gun control in states like NY)
I mean to invoke Godwin's law, Hitler and the Nazis were intellectuals that followed evolutionary humanism and followed Darwin's theories of evolution / "social darwinism". Just because they were morally abhorrent doesn't mean they weren't intellectuals.
Edit: from the replies, the library of my youth is not as common as I imagined, or no longer exists
If I ever get filthy rich (low chance lmao) I'd build a traditional library, organize book clubs / reading lists, the works. Make it a social hub of sorts.