P.F. Strawson’s oft-invoked distinction between “descriptive” and “revisionary” metaphysics is less straight-forward than one would perhaps expect. I will, hence, put together and analyze the clues that Strawson himself gives in Individuals (1959) on that distinction and discuss a few unclear aspects of it. Special attention is given to the question in what respects revisionary metaphysics could be “better” and why revisionary metaphysics could be indispensable, as Strawson points out. Concerning the latter question, I will present a proposal which goes a bit beyond Strawson, even if it stays in his broadly Aristotelian line of thought. This proposal could shed new light on the question “on what there is” and what “ontological priority” could plausibly mean, and on the role of metaphysics in general.