Despite practicing metaphysics for the better part of a decade, I have no idea what it is. A cursory look at the literature reveals at least a dozen distinct accounts of the nature of metaphysics as a discipline. That's horrifying. In this paper, I attempt four things. First, I lay out three desiderata for shaping the discussion of what metaphysics is: (i) Appropriateness; (ii) Neutrality and (iii) Uniqueness. Second, I provide a taxonomy of meta-metaphysical positions regarding the nature of metaphysics itself. Third, I argue that none of the available accounts of metaphysics are any good. Fourth, I offer tentatively (so tentatively you may not be able to hear my voice) a new account of metaphysics: metaphysics is, roughly, what's left over. When all other disciplines have bounded their domains of inquiry and staked a claim to answering a particular class of questions, the remainder is given to metaphysicians to deal with.