This totally makes sense. The axiomatic derivation and "mathematical" presentation may have had good motivation at the time (maybe to intimidate critics?) but it seems to raise the bar unnecessarily high given this is philosophical text, not rigorous mathematics. Reading it sequentially and taking the mathematical form seriously makes it subject to a "propagation of errors" type pathology [1] (the unease that the next statement simply follows logically from the previous ones keeps growing).
In the end what is interesting is to understand his philosophical world view which no doubt had internal coherence.
In the end what is interesting is to understand his philosophical world view which no doubt had internal coherence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty