Multicellular organisms contain numerous symbiotic microorganisms, collectively called microbiomes. Recently, microbiomic research has shown that these microorganisms are responsible for the proper functioning of many of the systems (digestive, immune, nervous, etc.) of multicellular organisms. This has inclined some scholars to argue that it is about time to reconceptualise the organism and to develop a concept that would place the greatest emphasis on the vital role of microorganisms in the life of plants and animals. We believe that, unfortunately, there is a problem with this suggestion, since there is no such thing as a universal concept of the organism which could constitute a basis for all biological sciences. Rather, the opposite is true: numerous alternative definitions exist. Therefore, comprehending how microbiomics is changing our understanding of organisms may be a very complex matter. In this paper we will demonstrate that this pluralism proves that claims about a change in our understanding of organisms can be treated as both true and untrue. Mainly, we assert that the existing concepts differ substantially, and that only some of them have to be reconsidered in order to incorporate the discoveries of microbiomics, while others are already flexible enough to do so. Taking into account the plurality of conceptualisations within different branches of modern biology, we will conduct our discussion using the developmental and the cooperation-conflict concepts of the organism. Then we will explain our results by referring to the recent philosophical debate on the nature of the concept of the organism within biology.

The aim of the paper is to assess the relative merits of two formal representations of structure, namely, set theory and category theory. The purpose is to articulate ontic structural realism (OSR). In turn, this will facilitate a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of both concepts, and will lead to a proposal for a pragmatics-based approach to the question of the choice of an appropriate framework. First, we present a case study from contemporary science -a comparison of the formulation of quantum mechanics in a language of Hilbert spaces and abstract C -algebras. It is then shown how the method of structural representation can be determined based on the pragmatics of goal-oriented research, not a dogmatic choice. We investigate a hypothesis stating that use of the interplay between the powers of abstraction and detail of different representational methods results in adopting a pluralistic, as opposed to standard, unificatory, perspective on the role of structural representation in OSR.

The aim of this paper is to present the philosophical figure of a Norwegian philosopher and writer, creator of biosophy, Peter Wessel Zapffe (1899–1990), and to investigate the origins of his notion of tragedy (tragic experience) which he introduces in his magnum opus Om det tragiske (1941). I attempt to do so by searching its roots in antique theory of tragedy introduced by Aristotle, especially on the pages of Poetics, to which Zapffe himself often refers to. A study of how Zapffe “read” and understood Aristotle’s Poetics, a classical piece for the study of tragedy and tragic experience, seems essential for establishing the roots and foundations of his own vision of tragedy and its functions, finally shifting from the purely literary sphere to the biosophical level of human existence. In this paper I will focus mainly on the notion and art of mimesis, laying the basis for further detailed studies of Zapffe’s biosophical analysis of the subject.