Before attempting a general evaluation of the intensional approach, I note three particular problems in Beardsley's account.39 First, consider the reference to physical possibility. The key notion of indirect self-contradiction is initially introduced in terms of logical impossibility given relevant definitions, but the Principle of Congruence refers to physical as well as logical possibilities. This means, presumably, that a cluster of connotations may not be assigned to the subject of a metaphorical attribution if inconsistency results, given certain physical laws. The principle in question thus constrains the metaphorical explications offered at any time by what are considered physical laws at that time, irrespective of the belief status of such laws in the context of the metaphor's origination. What can justify such constraint?