The (post)modernity has been characterized by a manifold crisis which got its philosophical articulation in numerous thinkers. Although awareness of a crisis, linked to the idea of a past „golden age“, has been an unviersal topos of history, which emerges in every shift of the paradigm of thought (Kuhn: 2013), from the ninteen-sixties, crisis has been experienced quite intensely, as a turning point, an occurence of rapid changes. Given that crisis is inherent to dialectics of history, just as to the very logic of thought, in evaluative terms we don't consider crisis to be something necessarily negative1 , but a moment of transformation, an emergence of deep changes which have their causal and logical ground in events, movements and ideas, that calls for a discernment, definition and disctinction of phenomena. Contemporary philosophers of science, in kuhnian terms, have recognized the crisis as a rise of anomalies in a so far dominant epistemological-scientific paradigm which signals a radical paradigm shift towards plurality or even relativity of epistemological discourses (Dupré: 1996, Feyerabend: 2006), while at the other hand, some of them point out that there must be firm scientific criteria, namely that falsifiability of a theory is a core criterium of scientificity (Popper: 2002, Novina: 2019) or that a new, integrative vision towards the unity of sciences is needed (Wilson: 2010). At the other hand, in the age of a rapidly growing technoscientific development, a question arises whether philosophical truth is still possible or needed (Rorty: 1990, Rosenberg: 2005, Ellis: 2016), as well as if it is still possible to ask a question on telos, i.e. purpose as an ontic truth of any being or activity (Komar: 2011).Thus contemporary crisis manifests itself essentially as a crisis of truth, knowledge and purpose of both technoscientific development and the corresponding educational system, which implies a general crisis of ethical orientation. The central purpose of this work is to reflect on the crisis through its three corelative aspects – technoscientific, epistemological and educational – and to try and respond appropriately with a paradigm of integrative thinking. If philosophy is, according to Hegel, „its own time appprehended in thoughts“ (Hegel: 1979), then the essential role of philosophical thinking is to address the crisis, and to engage in a dialogue with it. Due to the limited extent of this work, it has not been possible to analyse all the sources of the crisis, but it has been neccessary to define its important aspects and their theoretical genesis, with emphasis put on its three aspects: the crisis of technoscientific civilization, the epistemological crisis and the crisis of education. A basic intuitive thesis we begin with suggests that these are the three aspects of the one and same crisis, that these are interconnected and that they mutually produce each other. They need to be understood and analysed in order to give foundation to our central thesis – namely, that integrative thinking is an appropriate response to the crisis, in every aspect. We have tried to implement the response into practice, permeating education with philosophy as a basic cultural method (Martens: 2007), inspired by recent philosophical contributions, not in order to provide an ultimate solution (which would be too ambitious), but an apropriate reaction to the crisis. The main trait of the crisis is a radical disintegration and fragmentation of the objectified nature, knowledge and the thinking subject. This tendency has been accompanied with (self)abolishing philosophy through disintegration of mind, destruction of metaphysics and abandoning the notion of truth. Hereby, instrumental reason and principle of utility hold primacy over all areas of life, including those where they are not appropriate, and where something very different is called for - other than the terms of efficiency and cost-benefit analysis – in areas such as medicine, social work, education and dealing with non human living beings and the whole of the ecosphere (Taylor: 2009).Thus the hegemony of instrumental rationality sets a vitious circle of purposeless technocratic operation in motion, the one that is driven by reductionism. Just as (post)modern epistemology is hostile towards the notion of truth, so is contemporary biology towards the notion of telos, just as the postmodern philosophy of education is, and so is most of contemporary bioethics self-understood as an „applied ethics“ (Matulić: 2012, Čović: 2004). However, perspectives of thought that reason in terms of truth and purposefulness continue to be present and active – and these are perspectives that bring about integrative thinking. The other inportant thesis we rely on is that a relatively new concept of integrative bioethics, which proves to be a key pluriperspective field of study at the turning point of the epochs, methodologically coincides with reflective model of education that is grounded in multidimensionality of thinking, leading to integrative knowledge. Following that, we have found philosophy for children to be appropriate as a kind of general didactics. (Lipman: 2003). In conclusion, we have pointed out that bioethical topics should be sistematically embedded in a curriculum, in a philosophical i.e. critical manner, as bioethics in science of survival (Potter: 2007). Although in Croatia bioethical issues are thaught in secondary level of education and some university courses, students' acquaintance with bioethics is still insufficient (Krznar et al.: 2018). The aim of this work is twofold: a theoretical foundation of integrative thinking in philosophical discourse and process of education, and practical guidelines derived from the foundation, that are methods to its actualization. As a response to epistemological crisis we envisage integrative thinking, as a response to crisis of the technoscientific civilization there is integrative bioethics with its methodological model of pluriperspectivism, and as a response to the crisis of education we have recognized an integrative model of education – concretely, permeating curriculum with bioethical issues which are to be addressed by the method of philosophy for children. Philosophy for/with children (P4C), nowadays an international educational movement, was established in the context of a wider critical thinking movement which appeared in the USA in the nineteenseventies. In the last few decades, its European variants have been developed, and we are offering a variant of our own. The core idea of the philosophy for children, which has been trying to address the educational crisis, is the concept of education as a large laboratory of rationality (Lipman: 2007). Although the movement owes a lot to the tradition of pragmatism (Dewey: 1997, Peirce: 1994), which beside its illuminating contributions tends to reduce and instrumentalize the purpose of education and the idea of knowledge, it is possible to grasp its central ideas and implement them in an integrative manner, in the tradition of classical European philosophical thought on education, in German thinkers in particular (Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Humboldt, Nohl, Nelson, Martens). Our understanding of philosophy of children defines it not as an educational approach driven by instrumental rationality, but a paradigm of multidimensional thinking which leads to orientational knowledge. We have especially pondered upon the notion of philosophy for children and its foundation studying its elaboration by the German philosopher and scholar of didactics Ekkehardt Martens. During our inquiry, we came accross a particularly inspirational philosophizing of the Croatian philosopher of education Zvonimir Komar on the notion of purpose in pedagogy; his ideas have also been feeding our thinking. Matthew Lipman, the founder of philosophy for children as a discipline, envisaged education as a great laboratory of rationality, and building on Ch. S. Peirce's idea of the community of inquiry, has worked to transform a class into a „philosophical community of inquiry“. This project is surely worthwhile and desirable, however, in order to offer a more appropriate integrative view, it is neccessary to subject the very notion of rationality to critical thinking. Rationality peculiar to the technoscientific civilization is reduced to reason as ratio (Ver-stand) which stands for analytical thinking that is dis-integrative, usurping space to reason as intellectus (Vernunft) which is synthetic, unifying thinking. Such a rationality has gradually become more and more functional up to the level of an overwhelming instrumental rationality which, as it is dealing only with means and functions, has turned reason into mere means so it cannot determine a normative direction – but subjects everything to utility or excellence which is a conceptually empty principle (Liessmann: 2008, Readings: 2016, Komar: 2011). Utility understood in a performative manner, in an exclusively materialistic-technicistic way, as a limitless growth of technical power linked to economic growth and improvement of the standard of living, eventually brings about the autodestruction of the subject. Utility understood as effectiveness is a legitimate principle in many disciplinary domains, but becomes problematic when it is set as the only or a supreme (bio)ethical principle. In this context we are reflecting on the third issue: is philosophy dead or does it have a relevant say in essential issues nowadays? A symptom of relevance of this question was a discussion launched by a group of physicists and philosophers in 2010/2011 when some of the participants asserted that philosophy was dead, meaning that all the relevant problems, including issues that have been traditionally addressed as „philosophical“, are nowadays (more ore less successfully) addressed by natural sciences (Novina: 2019). Our thesis suggests that this in not the case and we have tried to prove it with arguments. Searching for a sinergy between integrative bioethics and philosophy for children, we have offered an integrative vision of rationality that takes into consideration multidimensionality of authentic thinking – orchestrating its critical, creative, caring and collaborative component. The integrative moment in bioethics is the philosophical perspective, with its founding and bridging role in orchestrating different scientific and nonscientific perspectives – biological, medical, economical, sociological, societal, theological, aesthetic etc., thus helping an integrative, orientational knowledge to be created as integrative solutions to complex problems are found. As regards the moral and ethical reflection, in the contemporary bioethical context caring thinking is of particular importance, as in bioethical education not just the improvement of conceptual and procedural thinking is called for, but also bioethical sensibility, so we have put a special emphasis on caring thinking. Doing that, we have been building on the pioneering work in Croatia by Bruno Ćurko who has analyzed in detail critical thinking in teaching philosophy, logic and ethics (Ćurko: 2017). As Ćurko's work reflected mostly on contributions made by English speaking authors, among whom the crtical thinking movement appeared and got developed, we have focused of European authors – German, Austrian and a Spanish author. We have also studied Croatian authors who have given contributions of value in this field. While both bioethics and philosophy for children got their articulation as new disciplines in the Anglo-American space, their conceptual roots lie in the European tradition. Given that, this work has tried to give a contribution to „europeisation of bioethics“ and philosophy of education, according to the guiding thought of the project of integrative bioethics developed by a colaboration of Croatian and German scholars (Čović, Hoffmann: 2004). We have studied and analysed the main European foundations to integrative bioethics, just as their practical implications. At the beginning of the abstract the fenomenon of (self)abolishing philosophy in late modernity was mentioned. As a matter of fact, philosophy today is an established academic discipline, but it seems that R. Rorty was right stating that the more philosophy was aiming to becoming „scientific“, the more it was detaching itself from other parts of culture (Rorty: 1979). In order to respond to this detachment of philosophy from the life world, from the nineteen-nineties on, the movement of philsophical practice has been developed. This phenomenon can also be understood as a response to the crisis, a transformation of sorts where philosophy tries to get back to the public sphere, to the agora where her genuine place is. Apart from philosophy for children, there is several other forms of philosophical practice which have been mentioned. This brings us to the conclusion that the two definitions of philosophy – as an academic discipline and as a basic cultural technique (E. Martens) that can be practised by all the thinking citizens – are not mutually exclusive but complementary in a fruitful way.So in this work we have presented an understanding of philosophy not only as a theory, but as a method. Having the investigation done, we can state that all three theses have been confirmed. Philosophers are acting as analysts and commentators of social processes (J. F. Lyotard, P. K. Liessmann), and reformer of the educational policies (M. Lipman, E. Morin). A philosopher is the one to warn the society of seriousness of certain trends, the one to take the role of a contemporary prophet which is interpreter of the present and designer of a future-directed ethics of responsibility (H. Jonas, V. Hösle). The role of philosophy in a society and lives of individuals does not belong to the past; philosophy is a critical method to approach the reality; insofar it is driven by criteria of rationality, it is rational but not neccessarily rationalistic, as it respects multidimensionality of thought. Given certain educational evidence, we have concluded that it is appropriate to cultivate a dialogical climate which can develop philosophical thinking in children by letting it happen, encouraging and training it. Philosophical potential is already inherent to children's ablity to wonder and admire the world, which is the very source of philosophy (Aristotle: 2001), but conditions to its growth must be provided. A basic methodological challenge we have faced is a (post)modern plurality of philosophical conceptions and normative theories among which some discard the concept of truth, purpose and an essential link between being and normativity, which is indispensable to a firm foundation of any thinking project (Jonas: 1989, Čović: 2009). However, in an integrative approach theoretical plurality can become an enriching advantage. Therefore it was necessary to pose a question: is it possible to found and actualize any ethical programme in an educational system without metaphysics and a truth-oriented epistemology? We have come to the conclusion that it is not. If not, which foundation is it and how it can be defined in the framework of local and global pluralism, which is often understood as relativism? One of the possible thinking paths was lit by Jacques Maritain, based on his experience of taking part in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at UN in 1948; we are coming from different traditions of thought and cannot argee on theoretical assumptions, but we can agree on practical solutions (Maritain: 1948). Following that, we have opted for a methodological eclecticism; following the key principle of integrative bioethics, we have drawn valuable insights from thinkers of different (and sometimes opposing) traditions. We have been looking for points of synergy among those – intersections of philosophical perspectives – considering them to be particularly valuable insights, when thinkers of different historical contexts and traditions have, independently from one another, come to the very same or similar conclusions. Hereby we have tried to practise a peculiar kind of integrativity. Eventually, we have come to the conclusion that a true (bio)etichs requires a foundation of a philosophical biology; its true expressions are to be found in classical European thinking, especially of the (or inspired by) German classical idealism. As a closing remark, methodological guidlines for a curriculum of bioethics for primary schools are offered, with a philosophical methodical-didactic approach being implemented.