 Whether or not (6) is truistic, both (5) and (7) involve technical or semi-technical vocabulary; moreover, they have been advanced as moves in a technical debate, namely one concerning the viability of the correspondence theory of truth. For these reasons it seems difficult to regard them as truisms (see Dodd 2008a: 179). What (5) and (7) mean, and which of them one will prefer as one’s statement of the identity theory of truth, if one is favorably disposed to that theory—one may of course be happy with both—will depend, among other things, on what exactly one thinks about the nature of such entities as that Socrates is wise. In order to get clear on this point, discussion of the identity theory has naturally been conducted in the context of the Fregean semantical hierarchy, which distinguishes between levels of language, sense, and reference. Frege recognized what he called “thoughts” (Gedanken) at the level of sense corresponding to (presented by) declarative sentences at the level of language. McDowell’s thinkables are meant to be Fregean thoughts: the change of terminology is intended to stress the fact that these entities are not thoughts in the sense of dated and perhaps spatially located individual occurrences (thinking events), but are abstract contents that are at least in principle available to be grasped by different thinkers at different times and places. So a Fregean identity theory of truth would regard both such entities as that Socrates is wise and, correlatively, facts as sense-level entities: this kind of identity theory will then state that true such entities are identical with facts. This approach will naturally favor (7) as its expression of the identity theory.