This, read a few months ago, has I think, got to be one of the more valuable things to me that I’ve ever come across. And unexpected. I had been prepared for some Victorian staled, failed idealistic tract. Some of which it actually is, and there’s even some startlingly off stuff in there. But the kernel of it, that the focus of an individual’s life, the quest for ever greater individuality, can only come in relation to others, and only in the attempt to coax our THEIR spiritual life and individuality. It’s something like seeing the potential, the gleam in the other. It’s an agnostic tract, but really all about the urge to belief. You might even say that the purpose of life was strive and prepare the way for a belief in the spiritual. In this it was incredibly novel, and his assessment of the political movements and their possible flaws and failings is nothing short of prescient for the 20th century that had barely begun to unfold when this was written (during WWI)–he basically diagnosed what could happen, and did, with Bolshevism and later even Fascism.
It was very interesting to me that he progessed with his argument from a real foundation in his own experience, understanding the appeal of Judaism and Christianity in turn, before finding both insufficient, yet helpful in formulating the ethical way. Particularly the principle of “non-violation” as he examines it as the basis of these religions, which yet fail to put forth a matching positive ideal to buttress the injunction again violation, resulting in something short of vital for one searching for a way to live a meaningful life.
These are vague impressions a few months later. It’s worth another read to me. Would recommend to others, but probably too much chance of the recommendation being misconstrued and having its impact blunted. Probably best to just happen on it, although I don’t imagine many alive today or in the future would ever dust off this forgotten tract.