> Rhetorically assuming this is truth, he’s also a socialist who has a better grasp on the liberal perspective. He’s a different socialist than his comrade who’s never bothered to explore liberal writing.
You read Emerson less narrowly than I did. And on a second read I see that I misremembered it (it wasn’t about how you are what you read).
> > I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.
My paragraph was more addressed to this:
> It’s a good reminder to be mindful of my content diet — you are what you read, even if you don’t always remember it.
This mirror relationship is not the case. You are not what you read. You are affected by it but you don’t become more like it.
You read Emerson less narrowly than I did. And on a second read I see that I misremembered it (it wasn’t about how you are what you read).
> > I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.
My paragraph was more addressed to this:
> It’s a good reminder to be mindful of my content diet — you are what you read, even if you don’t always remember it.
This mirror relationship is not the case. You are not what you read. You are affected by it but you don’t become more like it.