 The solutions to these problems, if judged satisfactory, seem to direct us to a conception of truth that has been called “intrinsicist” (Wright 1999: 207–9), and “primitivist” (Candlish 1999b: 207). This was a conception recognized by Moore and Russell who, in the period when they were sympathetic to the identity theory, spoke of truth as a simple and unanalysable property (Moore 1953: 261; 1993: 20–1; Russell 1973: 75; Cartwright 1987: 72–5; Johnston 2013: 384). The point here would be as follows. There are particular, individual explanations of the truth of many propositions. For example, the true proposition that there was a fire in the building will be explained by alluding to the presence of combustible material, enough oxygen, a spark caused by a short-circuit, etc. So, case by case, we will (at least often) be able to provide explanations why given propositions are true, and science is expanding the field of such explanations all the time. But according to the intrinsicist, there is no prospect of providing a general explanation of truth, in the sense of an account that would explain, in utterly general terms, why any true proposition was true. At that general level, according to the intrinsicist, there is nothing interesting to be said about what makes true propositions true: there are only the detailed case-histories. An intrinsicist may embrace one or another version of the identity theory of truth: what has to be rejected is the idea that the truth of a true proposition might consist in a relation to a distinct fact—that the truth of the true proposition that Socrates is wise, for example, might consist in anything other than identity with the fact that Socrates is wise. On this approach, truth is held to be both intrinsic to propositions, and  primitive.[16]  Intrinsicism was not a popular position, at least until recently: Candlish described it as “so implausible that almost no one else [apart from Russell, in 1903–4] has been able to take it seriously” (1999b: 208); but it may be gaining in popularity now (see, e.g., Asay 2013).