This book went over my head in quite a few places. A slower read for me would do well; however, we must forge ahead.
Philosophy is not one of my main genres to read. This is important to note.
The structure is typical of how I imagine philosophical books to be made. Discussing if a common good could exist stretched my understanding of what does that term mean? Is it, as I have been told, the best for as many people as possible? That is not common then, but majority good. Common good would be every one’s good which can not be achieved as each is pulled to one’s desires. Common evil is a reality as death to all would be undesirable.
Then to commonwealths. I like that to form a government, one must give up natural rights. This is one of the unfortunate aspects of societies. It is also the rubric against which all governments are measured: how many natural rights are taken versus how many ‘social’ rights are given.
I fear that our contemporary governments are most unbalanced.
I, however, agree to which government is best. Monarchist am I until death.
Now the parts which angered me…which seems to be a trend with classical books. He praises christianity, and its horrors.
Then, he did something that surprised me. Doctrine is subject to society as if all can claim god-like interventions, there would be chaos. Society, therefore, dictates doctrine.
Then he ruins it by spending a section demonising other religious traditions, and societies.
I did not catch the finer arguments at all. I will not feign so. I want to sit, and compare notes. I, also, did not throw this book. I did roll my eyes quite often…like every few phrases.
I shall let it marinate though.
Be safe. Be loved.