Environment is essentially in the category of culture and environmental research should be based on human value and culture. The study of the relationship between humans and their natural environment should also refer to human relations. Since the operational logic of social capital is the root of ecological crisis, the ultimate solution to this problem lies in human’s correct thinking, institutional, political and behavioral patterns in dealing with nature. Re-establishing human ecology therefore provides a cultural basis for the harmony between human and nature and realistic basis for the psycho-physical harmony and spiritualization of humans.

We highlight the deep ecology movement, inspired on ecological knowledge but mainly on the life-style of the ecological and biological field-worker. Its creator, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, stresses that human and no human beings have, at least, one kind of right in common: namely the ‘right’ to express its own nature, to live and blossom. This idea shows the inspiration from perseverare in suo esse, from Baruch Spinoza’s Ethics. But beyond this Spinozan influence, the striving for expression of one’s own nature is interpreted from the perspective of present evolutionism and endosymbiosis. Even though, scientific knowledge, if necessary, is considered limited. Thus, this movement should be regarded as ecophilosophical rather than ecological, as a kind of sophia orwisdom. In turn, many supporters of conservation biology (following Michael Soulé) associate their science with ecosophy, not encouraging the dichotomy fact/value. Conservation biology axioms such as: evolution in valuable, organism’s diversity is good, premature extinction of species populations is negative, etc., have been inspired on the deep ecology movement. The consideration of the terms biodiversity, evolution or biosphere as thick ethical concepts (following Hillary Putnam), shows this integration of the descriptive and the normative.

The subject of author’s reflection is transformation of metaphysics in creativity of I. Kant and an opportunity of faith on the basis of new existential ontology. It begins from opportunity developing of new metaphysics in the works of Kant and then – Heidegger. There is a problem in understanding of metaphysics inKant’s art. From author’s point of view Kant tried to create a new type of ontology as a real metaphysics that doesn’t destroy the faith if one understands it non-metaphysically. Even more – Kant’s and Heidegger’s new ontology can produce and have already produced a new type of faith understanding. This transcendental and aprioristic faith is the inner essence of different faiths, which objected in religions. Nowadays this faith must be opened and rethought,because it can helps to solve global spiritual problems of mankind. Only real (ontological) and humanistic knowledge can spiritually unite persons and peoples.

The sole anthropocentrism led to environmental crisis, and the ideology of the individual standard of the anthropocentrism of Marxist philosophy aggravatedenvironmental crisis. As a result, some people considered that the theory of Marxist philosophy was outdated and could not guide people in their practice. And then they had a doubtful and negative attitude. But this idea is completely off base.The reason of this idea is that they neglected the future of Marxist philosophy and theory. The environmental anthropocentrism of categorical standard of Marxist philosophy will be able to solve the environmental crisis.