Foundations of Theory by William Young. Nutley. N. J.

Abstract

602 BOOK REVIEWS Aristotle says that it can be based on the common opmwn of the many or it can be psychologically deduced from the proper function of man. In effect, he explicitly bases his argumentation on the former and implicitly grounds it in the latter. Since the Eudemian Ethics closely parallels the Nicomachean Ethics, attention now is given only to the implicit doctrine used in the treatise. The basic difference is that while the NE defines man in terms of nons, the EE is less rationalistic, conceiving man in terms of psyche. EE's analysis of happiness, then, looks towards integrating the intellectual and moral virtues in a concrete vein. The style of the book is difficult; the general thesis seems plausible and should spark some serious discussion. St. Mary's University San Antonio, Texas LAURENCE ZIMMERMANN Foundations of Theory. By WILLIAM YouNG. Nutley. N.J.: Craig Press, 1967. Pp. 13!i!. $3.75. Many a professional philosopher has had the experience, in the reading of countless articles in philosophical journals, of saying to himself: yes, you are correct, but only if I grant you your suppressed premises. These are required by your argument but are questionable. You assume what is most debatable and beg the question. Professor Young wants to avoid this, and hence he poses for himself the problem of the ultimate justification of Theoretical Thought. " This study envisages the question of logical rather than factual presuppositions of Theoretical Thought, the warrant for assurance that Theoretical Thought is valid rather than the de facto conditions of the existence of Theoretical Thought." (p. VIII) The book is small, but the quality is excellent. The author always gets down to fundamentals. He does not use the term " theory " to cover up problems. He devotes one chapter to the analysis of this term, giving a careful consideration to the distinction between theories, hypotheses, and laws, and also to the confusion in contemporary thought, because they are not recognized. In answering the question as to what is a " Theoretical " in contradistinction to a "non-Theoretical" language, the author gives one of the best analyses I have seen of the distinctions which should (but often are not) made between the "analytic" and the "a priori." (pp. 51, 5!i!) All philosophers-and who is not guilty?-use the notion of "presupposition ," often without regard to what it presupposes. Professor Young gives an analysis of this idea. His distinction between " presuppose " and " premise," although not new, is most interesting. BOOK REVIEWS 608 The most important part of the author's analysis, and that to which all his work converges, is in the last two chapters, especially the last, the title of which is " Theory and Theism." There is an ingenious argument that the agnostic's position is coherent only on the supposition of atheism. And he adds: "If the claim of radical theism is discredited on the ground that it is open to question, the ground by which it is discredited is itself discredited." (p. VI) The author's conclusion, the last sentence in the book, as to the justification of Theoretical Thought is: " If meaning depends on God and the original awareness of God is non-Theoretical, the presupposition of God as the Origin of meaning may be reckoned to be the ultimate non-Theoretical factor in the foundations of Theoretical Thought." (p. 117) Now this conclusion is certainly compatible with the author's "radical theism," which of necessity denies the " autonomy of Theoretical Thought." But, it is not clear to the writer how all this is compatible with the task the author sets for himself, which is (I) to justify Theoretical Thought only " logically," avoiding all " factual presuppositions " (p. VIII) , and (2) to limit the argument therefore to the matter of validity rather than truth. Is the contradiction here apparent or real? Professor Young, in one place, seems to be sensitive to this question and lays down the " claim " that " God is the Origin of all meaning " can be translated into " God is the Creator of the world." He admits that this is an "odd formulation." Such a translation is possible in terms of Hegelianism, which the author obviously wishes to...