It is by deliberating how to bring about ends they wish for that human beings make the choices, or determinate intentions, by which their actions are explained. Yet, while the truth of at least some of their beliefs, and the validity of at least some of their inferences from them, presumably make some difference to their choices, the propositions about which they deliberate are true or false independently of their believing them, and the inferences they draw are valid or invalid independently of their drawing them. Explanations of action in the Socratic tradition seem therefore to belong to two worlds: the world of propositions and their logical relations, and the world of everyday events in which human beings take attitudes. Are such hybrids intelligible? And if they are, how do they explain everyday events like actions?