ABSTRACT. In this paper I argue against several defenders of metaphysics who claim that the extant analytic critiques of metaphysics do not apply to "good" versions of it, particularly to A. N. Whitehead's version. The proponents of "good metaphysics" grant it the status of a "language-game" and/or "grammar", arguing that it is a descriptive form of metaphysics that transcends the desirable analytic critiques. My counter argument is that this claim is based on the confused idea that a descriptive metaphysics is a grammatical activity similar in nature to the descriptive activity of philosophy as grammar. Descriptive generalizations, I argue, are not the same as descriptive elucidations of ordinary concepts.