Man is a biosocial entity, so, in the study of his adaptive peculiarities two directions, that is, biologic and social, can be determined. Within the biological framework (more correctly, natural, not restricted by the boundaries of biology as a science) it is possible to combine evolutionary, genetic, medical-biological and ecological investigations. Recently, the problem of man’s adaptation to profound changes taking place in the environment, under the impact of man’s activity, becomes of growing importance. The second direction of the man adaptation research may be called social or socio-cultural. In the course of social adaptation man acts as an adaptively-adapting entity, inasmuch as, unlike animals, he does not only adapt himself to the environment, but also transforms it in course of his activity, sometimes creating a new environment. The complex study of human being makes necessary a synthesis of natural-scientific and socialhumanitariansides of the man’s adaptation problem. The analysis of the above mentioned directions, of social and biological man’s adaptations research, enables us tocome to the conclusion that no one direction, taking separately, can resolve the problem of man’s adaptation, which has a complicated pattern with many aspects. The man’s adaptation problem emerged within the framework of biology, and during a long time it was of evolutionary-biological character. However, in the course of the development of science it has become an interdisciplinary issue. It may be conceived profoundly and with all aspects only by means of an interdisciplinary synthetic analysis.

The term natural has long been one of the key concepts within environmental ethics discourse, environmental legislation, policy and practice. A central issue of many theoretical disputes and conservation/restoration practices revolves around the “naturalness” of living organisms, species or ecosystems. Many argue that natural things, whether they are organisms or inert matter, have intrinsic value that obliges humans to morally consider plants, animals and ecosystems. The ethical questions thus raised lead in turn to metaphysical inquiries about what makes a thing natural. This paper confronts the existing, often colliding, views and understandings of this contested concept.

Atomism is the programme explaining all changes in terms of invariant units. The development of physics during the 20th century may be treated as a spectacular triumph of atomism. However, paradoxically, changes and conceptual difficulties brought about by quantum mechanics lead to the conclusion that the ontological model provided by classical atomism has become inadequate. Atoms (and elementary particles) are not atomos—indivisible, perfectly solid, unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible (eternal), and the void is not simply an empty space. According to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, there is no unchanging substance at all. If we want to understand contemporary notions of matter and develop an ontological model of the world, consistent with contemporary natural sciences, we should probably go beyond the conceptual framework of atomic philosophy.

Two different value orientations with regard to nature are presented. The first orientation corresponds to the naturalistic worldview. It emphasizes the need for protecting the environmental order of things. The second value orientation situates our interests and desires above the imperatives of the nature preservation. Nature is grasped, first of all, as raw material to be more or less radically changed. The distinction of two value systems is relevant for our position not just regarding nature around us, but regarding human nature as well. The current bioethical debates on therapy versus enhancement reflect the opposition of these two sets of values.

The essence of the science dealing with the origin of life, called protobiology, is based on the idea of the evolutionary formation of the first living beings from non-living matter. This thesis is generally accepted by both scientists and philosophers. However, the agreement stops at the same point at which it begins. At least this is the case for the scientists. Meanwhile, the philosophers appear to be amazingly concordant where the consensus, owing to their different orientations, might be rather unexpected. I demonstrate that at the source of many recently declared views concerning the philosophical foundations of origins-of-life studies—views both of scientists and philosophers—there is a misconception of a fundamental nature. I also try to reveal some sources of this misconception and its sometimes peculiar consequences.

The paper concerns the science of colors (die Farbenlehre) on which among others J.W. Goethe and W. Ostwald were focused. The first part of this essay describes the science of colors in the period from antiquity to late Renaissance. In the pre-scientific phase it was intervened with philosophical speculations as well with symbolism of magic, religions and customs. Since Newton’s time there are distinguished the colors of light and the colors of objects. J.W. Goethe’s Farbenlehre, discussed in the second part, connects empirical studies and metaphysical vision of the light and colors. W. Ostwald, a distinguished chemist and philosopher-energetist, attempted to construct measurable Farbenlehre. He is a creator of a strict colors’ taxonomy, but his soul of artist (he was also a painter) “crept into” his study of colors. The discussion of Ostwald’s deliberations is contained in the third part of the paper.

The modern theory of the self-organization of complex systems, or synergetics, is considered in the context of historical traditions of natural philosophy. It is substantiated that it is unfairly to treat synergetics as a modern “speculative physics”, i.e. the natural philosophy of a new type. However, there is no doubt that on the basis of synergetics a certain worldview is built, and this worldview oversteps the boundaries of basic scientific disciplines and reaches a meta-scientific level of research. The paper presents an attempt of a critical analysis of the claims of the theory of complex systems selforganization (synergetics) and the interdisciplinary generalizations and the universal efficacy of its models. The grounds of synergetic models transfer to different disciplinary fields are discussed. It is argued that synergetics is rather a mental scheme or a heuristic approach to exploring the complex behavior of systems, and not a universal key of solving concrete scientific problems. Some prospects of the development and the possible future of synergetics in the next decades are estimated.

The recent scientific discoveries cast a new light on the classical distinction between the actual and the possible. A creative elaboration upon this theme, stimulated by works on modal logic and controversies around the semantics of Kripke, has been developed in contemporary discussions on epistemological aspects of quantum cosmology and on ontological preconditions of genetic determinants.Proceeding from new scientific theories, in the paper an attempt is undertaken to determine the ontological structure of nature in which one satisfactorily explains new data implied by these theories. In the context of contemporary physical discoveries the very concept of possible being is reinterpreted. A new version of moderate Platonism is proposed in a form of modified modal actualism. Its classical counterpart was earlier developed by Robert C. Stalnaker and Alvin Plantinga in their ontology of the possible worlds.

The simple model of conflict-prone situations called Prisoner’s Dilemma is discussed. Whereas the best strategy for the model is to defect, in the case of its iterated version (Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma—IPD) it is possible and more profitable to cooperate with the opponent.The simple strategy called Tit for Tat (TFT) which is easy to recognize, never defects first, punishes every defection but is also forgiving is presented. The TFT strategy is very successful being able to establish the cooperation with its opponents. The possible outcome of the competition between the TFT strategy and non-cooperative strategies is considered. It turns out that even small number of TFT strategies can overcome the greater number of more “egoistic” strategies.The described model can give the better understanding of some psychological, sociological and biological processes as well as help to propagate the altruistic attitudes in the society.

1. Living organisms are characterized by complexity and uniqueness of structure, as well as by specific pattern of changes during ontogenesis programmed in their own genome.2. Although general mechanisms of gene expression and regulation are well understood, our knowledge of spatial morphogenesis is rather limited and patchy despite discovery of homeotic genes.3. Developmental biology is able to explain principles of formation of neuronal network in the brain, whereas neurophysiology provides detailed information on the role of various neurotransmitters, but we still do not understand the essence of consciousness, and even more self-consciousness of the man.4. Some philosophical theories trying to explain the nature of self-consciousness, such as parallelism and interactionism, are briefly discussed.

Differences between macro and microphysics. How do we come to know the world? Theories—can they be beautiful? Cloakroom principle. Microparticles are identical—conssquences. Platonian beings.