I evaluate McDowell's criticism of Kant's transcendental idealism as follows. (1) McDowell misunderstands transcendental idealism as empirical idealism. So, Kant's transcendental idealism does not endanger the independence of empirical reality. (2) McDowell's theses and Kant's claims in transcendental idealism has the same status. So, McDowell is criticised as idealism as McDowell's criticism of Kant's idealism. (3) McDowell argues that transcendental idealism implies the dichotomy of phenomena and thing in itself. But, transcendental idealism or the transcendental perspective does not necessarily imply this dichotomy. (4) Wittgenstein's 'quietism', which McDowell depends upon, does not exclude the transcendental perspective. Rather Wittgenstein's quietism is similar to Kant's transcendental idealism. (5) The dichotomy of phenomena and thing in itself in Kant is the dichotomy of science and moral. This dichotomy reappear the dichotomy of the manifest image and the scientific image in Sellars' philosophy. So, McDowell's criticism to this dichotomy is the evidence which shows that McDowell does not treat the world view of the natural sciences or the causal order seriously.