Abstract

In 'Mind and World' and various other writings, John McDowell targets the position he calls "bald naturalism". Bald Naturalists are those who aim to give a broadly scientific, lawlike account of the mind. McDowell is opposed to such an approach. He does not, however, provide any direct arguments against it. His claim is that he does not need to. He is a quietist, and this paper explores his quietist strategy. It shall be found wanting, and I shall argue that McDowell does require arguments against the position that he sees as having a pernicious, scientistic influence on the philosophy of mind.