The paper constitutes part of some more comprehensive textbook and embraces several introductory issues concerning philosophy of nature. I examine first different notions of this philosophical discipline used in various historically relevant contexts. Later on, I present reasons for claiming the philosophy of nature revival nowadays. Some aspects of its update are examined: the traditional and contemporary aims; roles related to different conceptions of the natural philosophy; its main stages of progressive change followed by its central categories. These developments have been accompanied by the growing view that philosophy of nature has become sufficiently justified in existence.

The article presents the main concepts of the philosophy of nature (Aristotelian, Cartesian, Kantian. Hegelian etc.) which emerges in the European philosophical tradition in the period from the origins of philosophy of nature (Milesian philosophy of nature) to Hegel’s philosophy of nature. Some attention is also devoted to the most obvious and most influential problem relation between philosophy (philosophy of nature) and empirical science, which arises from historical and philosophical attempts of reconstructing the genesis of modern experimental science.

In the paper one discusses historical aspect o f the ’elementary particle problem’. Understanding of it is important for development of modern physics in both local, as well as cosmological scale. At the end of 20-th century, importance of the issue comes to be of fundamental kind because of its strict connections with civilizational increase. The problem has been discussed at possible wide area of scientific properties and some important questions, which science will have to answer in nearest future.

The categories of paradigm and of revolution according to Polikarov (1993) are applied to the history of the methodology of geology. Three paradigms are distinguished: 1° the system of the Earth created by James Hutton; 2° Charles Lyell’s uniformitarianism as a complex and developed structure; 3° the modified principle of geological actualism. Changes of succesive methodological paradigms in geology were revolutionary in their character. The following kinds of revolutions are distinguished. The establishment of the Huttonian theory of the Earth, regarded as the fundamental theoretical system, was the first. Transitions from the paradigm 1° to 2° and from the paradigm 2° to 3° are considered as revolutions, although with considerable continuity namely the principle of actualism was common for the paradigms 1°-3° though the meaning of this term was different at different times.

While presenting an interpretation of numerous problems of mathematics, physics and biology, Roger Penrose developed a philosophical idea, which is in some ways compatible with the philosophy of Plato. The arguments are classified as follows:- Platonic existence of mathematical objects,- existence of reason for the accord between the mathematical world and the physical world,- non-algorithmic nature of mathematical insight.- existence of non-recursive physical processes.The problems Penrose discusses pose questions, which do not have one and unambiguous answer. However, the importance of Penrose’s contribution to philosophy is the outline of rational and critical perspective of particular sciences and philosophy itself.

This is a two-part paper. The first part describes the direct influence of five philosophical assumptions adopted by Milne, which shaped up his Kinematic Relativity and cosmology theories. The first three of his assumptions were of epistemological nature: deductive method of constructing a scientific theory; gaining „insight into phenomena”, and a simplicity postulate (cosmological principle). The two latter ones were of ontological nature; they related to problems of time and space.The second part of this paper deals with Milne’s own critical judgment of the basis of general relativity, which was deeply rooted in his philosophical assumptions. Especially heavy criticism fell on the simplicity postulate, which directly or indirectly led to the following: 1) rejection of curved space and choosing Euclid’s version, 2) criticism of a nonsensical, according to Milne, notion of „expanding space”, 3) non-acceptance of close correlation between space and matter, 4) adoption of his own idea of time and space and, as a result, rejection of notion of space-time, 5) rejection of General Relativity because of too complex mathematical equations.Milne did not stop at criticising Einstein’s theory, but also undertook the task of constructing his own theory, totally opposed to the General Relativity. It so happened therefore, that his philosophical assumptions became foundations of a new, original natural theory, which should have - according to the view of its author - indicated a better way to build a physical knowledge and a more efficient way to understand the Universe.