 Along with this unity, and the hint supplied by the use of the progressive in anticipation, there are two main arguments for the theory of intending as being embarked on intentional action. First, it readily explains why intending is always intending to do something. (For this argument, see Thompson 2008, pp. 120–3, 127–8, 130–1, drawing on Baier 1970; Moran and Stone 2009, pp. 143, 147.) Although we sometimes report intention as a propositional attitude—‘I intend that p’—such reports can be recast as ‘intending to…’ as when I intend to bring about that p. By contrast, it is difficult to rephrase such mundane expressions as ‘I intend to go home’ in propositional terms. ‘I intend that I am (will be) going home’ suggests indifference to getting there. ‘I intend that I (will) have got home’ suggests indifference to my own agency. ‘I intend that I go home’ can only be read as an intention with a habitual object, describing a general practice of going home; it is not directed at a particular action. If intending is being on the way to intentional action, it is no surprise that its proper object—what one is on the way to doing—is not a proposition or state of affairs, but something one might do.