Having determined the point of view and principle of metaphysics, the question of metaphysical _method_ will be divested of some of its greatest difficulties. It will be clear to any one who reflects that the very first problem in regard to the method of metaphysics will be that of its starting-point and the kind of results it is to look for. And little can be accomplished here until it has been settled that consciousness is to have the primacy, and that its prerogative is to supply both standpoint and principle of the investigation. We have gone a long way toward mastering our method when we have settled these points: (1) that the metaphysical world is a world of consciousness; (2) that the conscious form of effort rather than the mechanical is the species of activity or movement with which we have to deal; and, (3) that the world it is seeking to interpret is ultimately one of _idea_ and _reality_ in which the processes take the _purposive_ form. In view of this, the important steps of method (and we use the term method here in the most fundamental sense) will be (1) the question of the _form_ of metaphysical activity or agency as contrasted with that of the physical sciences. This may be brought out in the contrast of the two terms _finality_ and _mere efficiency_, in which by mere efficiency is meant an agency that is presumed to be thoughtless and purposeless, and consequently without _foresight_. All this is embodied in the term _force_ or physical energy, and less explicitly in that of _natural causation_. Contrasted with this, _finality_ is a term that involves the forward impulse of _idea_, _prevision_, and _purpose_. Anything that is capable of any sort of _foretaste_ has in it a principle of prevision, selection, choice, and purpose. The impulse that motives and runs it, that also stands out as the _end_ of its fulfillment, is a foretaste, an _Ahnung_, an anticipation, and the whole process or movement, as well as every part of it, will take on this character. (2) The second question of method will be that of the nature of this category of which _finality_ is the form. What is its content, pure idea or pure will, or a synthesis that includes both? We have here the three alternatives of _pure rationalism_, _voluntarism_, and a doctrine hard to characterize in a single word; that rests on a _synthesis_ of the norms of both rationalism and voluntarism. Without debating these alternatives, I propose here briefly to characterize the _synthetic_ concept as supplying what I conceive to be the most satisfactory doctrine. The principle of _pure rationalism_ is one of insight but is lacking in practical energy, whereas, that of _voluntarism_ supplies practical energy, but is lacking in insight. Pure voluntarism is _blind_, while pure rationalism is _powerless_. But the synthesis of _idea_ and _will_, provided we go a step further (as I think we must) and presuppose also a germ of _feeling_ as _interest_, supplies both _insight_ and _energy_.