Graeme Forbes developed is to argue that the class of objectual axcivude verbs divides exhaustively into two sub- classes, the fist containing those objecual attitude verbs that do permit substitution end the second those: that are analyzable as disguised propositional sxcivades. IF this view is right, thee no further problem for our theory to face. Indeed, there isan arguament that, barring an analysis im terms of propositional atitudes, an abjectual attitude verb ‘anaot disallow substirtion. The argument is that substitutivity must hold without exception for co- referential terms standing for an entity that fills fone of the places of the attitude relation. For example, it would be impossible to change truth value by interchanging expressions for the same proposition in the scope of a propositional attitude verb: it ie only because of disagreement about the identity of propositions, and so about which pairs of that clauses do contribute the same proposition, that there is scope for diagreement between Rus sellians and Fregeans about the soundness of sub- sti tivity for ascriptions of propositional attitudes, But én the case of objectual attitude ascriptions that fare mot propositional atitude asciptions in dis {quise, there is no disagreement about the identities of the relevant objects; for instance, itis simply built: into the example thar Superman is Clark Kent. Hence we must be able 10 interchange these names in (20a) and (206), if “is afraid of and “worships are ireducibly objectual, ‘An example of an objectual atiude verb that does support substtutvity i sees" as for example in Keith's judgment (2a) T have never seen Degas's A Cotton Office in New Orleans. Suppose itis pointed out to Keith that A Cotton Office in New Orleans was the pain ‘rowed around ata cerain exhibition and that he managed to study i briefly (without realizing that was AA Cotton Office in New Orleans). Keith certainly saw that paiming, and thst painting was A Coston Office in New Orleont. So Keith has seen Degas's A Cotton Ofice in New Orleses, and he must withdraw @la), But if Keidh also maintains wpeveryone was (2b) Thavenever believed (until now) that A Conon Office ix New Orleens has been ‘exhibited here thems even though Be has believed for some time that she psining (Invoking a perceptual or mem= SO ory demonstrative) has been exhibited here, and thas just accepted that thet painting is 4 Catton Office in New Orleans, he is under no obligation atall to withdraw (21b) (unless he sin the grip ofa Russellian semantics). Thus the difference between secing and believing.” ‘A likely case of an objectual aritude verb that does admit of 2 propesitiona attitude analysis is ‘seeks’, asin Church's example (1956, 8) (22a). Schliemann socks the site of Troy, which mighe be rendered, dla Quine (Quine 1955, 102), a5 (225) Schliemann strives that Schliemann finds the site of Troy, or beter, (22e) Schliemann strives to make it tue that he himself finds the site of Troy.7* It would be tidy ill objectual attitude verbs could be classified with ‘ses’ or ‘seeks’, but Iam eonti= denn that ‘edmires’ and ‘is afeid of belongs with neither. Ihave no intuition that substitution fils in the position of the second argument of ‘sees’, but sy intuition tht it als for ‘admires’ and ‘is afraid of” is as strong as my corresponding intuition for propositional auitude verbs."* The abstract argu rent given above about the identities of propor itions and objeces might be appealed to in order to justify a strategy of explaining away such intuitions ‘of substitution failure in the objectual but not the propositional cases, but we would still owe an ‘explanation of why there are objectual cases where substitution seems to fail. And we will se anyway that the abstract argument can be avoided, for it overlooks 2 way in which substitution failure in objectual attitude ascriptions would be consistent ‘with standard identity conditions forthe objects As far as assimilating ‘admires! and “is afraid of ta ‘seeks’ js concerned, explanation is one thing, analysis another. It is quite plausible that we can explain the presence of substiution failure in ‘objectual atitude reports of the form B's x in terms of the propositional atitudes of B involving specific ways of thinking of z. It is because ofall Lex Luthor's beliefs above Superman, 20 labled, that Luthor fears him, and because of all she mows about Superman, so labeled, chat Lois admires him. By contrast, there is no difference