Modern science is looking for the theory of everything, especially physics._x000D_ The scope of the name "everything" compared to the theory of participation_x000D_ shows that the theory of everything was already created by Plato and _x000D_ and then rejected and replaced by the theory of causality of Aristotle. _x000D_ In the Middle Ages, the theory of participation was reinterpreted in the existential paradigmThen forgotten, it is revived today thanks to Louis B. Geiger and Cornalio Fabro._x000D_ The hypothesis invented by physicists to create the theory of everything being sought for so long, are – in comparison to the theory of participation – completely particular. _x000D_ On the reasonable assumption that the naturalistic paradigm in natural sciences has limited cognitive abilities, the range of explications is also limited. _x000D_ Justification for this claim stems not only from a methodological point of view but also when we try to explain the mystery of the human being using only the methods of natural sciences. _x000D_ Culture with its four pillars: religion, science, art and morality seems to be understandable. _x000D_ It seems that natural sciences cannot explain adequately neither the universality of religion, nor its confessional diversity. _x000D_ It is similar with the other areas of culture. The theory of participation deals with both versatility and diversity of cultural phenomena. _x000D_ It can be also applied to the natural problematic: the issue of the beginning of the universe, its intelligibility and anthropic features, the origin of natural rights, etc. _x000D_ The theory of participation is, therefore, the most versatile, concerns every existing being._x000D_ It all started with Plato and Aristotle. They both set a program for modern science._x000D_