 Any attempt to understand Fechner must come to terms with both sides of his personality. We must do justice to his panpsychism as well as his positivism. We can dismiss the panpsychism on positivist grounds, as many have done; but if we do that, we beg questions against Fechner. He insisted that his conclusions are based on well-grounded inferences from facts of experience, and he pointed out (rightly) that resistance to his views was often based on little more than prejudice. Far from a reckless metaphysician, Fechner himself applied positivist standards to his own metaphysics. We can dispute whether he met those standards; but we can can do so only after a careful examination of his argument. Even where his conclusions extend beyond the empirical evidence for them, they at least raise interesting questions and possibilities. Fechner’s panpsychism raises the important question of the limits of consciousness: Is consciousness limited to human beings and animals? Or should we extend it to plants and indeed all organic beings?