From the opening sentence of the opening chapter right down to the strangely abrupt closing paragraph, Sidney Hook's latest attempt to solve the riddle of the universe is a vast, fathomless jumble of unoriginal propositions and esoteric hocus-pocus. He seeks -- by going over the same ground scores of writers have covered before him -- to establish whether that which is true of ideas in science, technology, and everyday activity is equally true of philosophical ideas. Much of what he reviews in this connection is undeniably valid -- empirically, historically true -- whether heterodox or not. On the other hand, his linguistic highway to those oases of validity is strewn with ideological obstacles. He tenaciously clings to the belief that it is possible to prove the absence or non-existence of an abstract, intangible thing (in this case a casual relationship) -- a position that does nothing to support his own alleged empiricism. His discourses on Hegel, Nicbuhr, John Deway and dozens of other demi-philosophers are no better and no worse than analyses contrived by other writers. The quest today is not so much for ""being"" as it is for the meaning of being. Hook, though he provides fuel for the flames of many an endless pre-dawn argument, is unlikely to change many minds or sway many opinions, however illogical or unrealistic those opinions may be.