In this article, I challenge two paradigmatic forms of heterodox (meta-)philosophical naturalism – second-nature naturalism and liberal naturalism – and outline a form of naturalism capable of avoiding their shortcomings. I first criticize John McDowell’s arguments for a second-nature naturalism by showing how they give rise to a merely negative and philosophically unsatisfactory definition of nature. In the second place, I confront a meta-philosophical position developed in McDowell’s wake, i.e., liberal naturalism. As I argue, Liberal Naturalism inherits the shortcomings of McDowell’s stance with regard to the philosophical practice it advocates. After illustrating how liberal naturalism implies the rejection of any continuity between scientific and philosophical discourse, I conclude by sketching a form of meta-philosophical naturalism capable of doing justice to both heterodox and orthodox naturalism.
