 In the latter case there is surely no question of definition; rather, we are supposed, according to the correspondence theorist, to have an example of metaphysical explanation, and that is just what, according to the identity theorist, we do not have. After all, the identity theorist will insist, it seems obvious that the relation, whatever it is, between the proposition that Socrates is wise and the fact that Socrates is wise must, given that the proposition is true, be an extremely close one: what could this relation be? If the identity theorist is right that the relation cannot be one of metaphysical explanation (in either direction), then it looks as though it will be hard to resist the insinuation of the linguistic data that the relation is one of identity.