 However, such an approach to states of affairs makes them explanatorily uninteresting. If we want to explain why (1a) and (1b) ((2a)–(2b)/(3a)–(3b)) have the same modal profile, appealing to states of affairs in Vendler’s sense does not allow us to make progress. For instance, saying that (1a) and (1b) have the same modal profile because they belong to the set of thoughts that are about Hesperus and predicate the property of shining to it is at best a partial explanation. For it raises such questions as “What has belonging to this set to do with possibility?” and “In virtue of which property has a set of thoughts modal properties”? In contrast, the assumption that there are states of affairs that are not just a particular kind of set and that have properties like being possible or being probable can be independently motivated and is explanatory progress.