Naturalism is the dominant metaphysical attitude in the natural sciences as well as in a good part of the social sciences and even in the humanities (sometimes seen in a combination of post-modernism and naturalism). Nida-Rümelin shows that this implicit or explicit naturalism cannot be maintained. The impetus behind most of his arguments against naturalism is pragmatist: he takes the constituency of human agency as given and tries to show that these constituents are incompatible with naturalism. There is no plausible naturalistic interpretation of reason, freedom, and responsibility. Nida-Rümelin first presented his arguments in a trilogy of books: the first about practical reason (2001), the second about freedom (2005), and the third about responsibility (2011). Practical reason, epistemic and practical freedom, epistemic, practical and emotive responsibility are interpreted as three aspects of the same phenomenon: being affected by reasons. This does not mean that the chain of reasoning does not come to an end. On the contrary, here again Nida-Rümelin is close to Wittgenstein in claiming that all reasoning ends in the indisputable elements of our shared form of life. It is irrational to doubt everything, or as Wittgenstein claims, there are some things that a sensible human man will not doubt. Moreover, reasoning is relevant for actions. To doubt it would mean that human beings can transcend their human condition. As Peter Strawson argued in an influential article ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ being reasonable means that individuals do not exclusively depend on factors beyond their control. What individuals think to be right is relevant for what they do. There cannot be any form of naturalistic determination that excludes reasoning itself. Nida-Rümelin takes the argument against the reduction of logics to psychology (Frege, Husserl) as an argument in favor of the gradual autonomy of reason. In being able to reason logically, indiviuals follows logical laws that cannot be identified with psychological or neurophysiological data. Additionally, Nida-Rümelin takes the insights of Alonzo Church and Kurt Gödel from the 1930s regarding non-computability showing that reasoning cannot be exclusively algorithmic. As a naturalist position takes causal processes to be algorithmic, reasoning cannot be naturalized. Humanism in Nida-Rümelin’s sense therefore excludes deductionist naturalism.