1 Semiotica 194 (2013),189–206 Varieties of intentional objects Arkadiusz Chrudzimski (Salzburg and Szczecin) In this paper I propose a certain classification of entities which are introduced in various theories of intentionality under the label “intentional objects”. Franz Brentano’s immanent objects, Alexius Meinong’s entities “beyond being and non-being”, or Roman Ingarden’s purely intentional objects can serve as examples of such entities. What they all have in common is that they have been introduced in order to extensionalise the so called “intentional contexts”. But not all entities which function this way deserve the name of intentional objects. In particular, neither Frege’s senses nor mental contents of the early Husserl are to be classified as intentional objects in my sense. Roughly speaking, to be properly called “an intentional object” a postulated entity must be supposed to function as a target of the subject’s intention. In other words: intentional objects are supposed to stand “before the subject’s mind”, so that they, in a sense, “replace” the common sense objects of reference. It turns out that the intentional objects that were introduced in the history of philosophy make up groups which, from an ontological point of view, are very heterogeneous. Nevertheless it is possible to formulate certain systematic criteria for classifying them. 1. Intentional contexts, postulated entities and representation Suppose John is thinking of the excellent mountain bike he saw last Sunday in the only sport shop in his town. The description of this state of affairs constitutes a so called “intentional context”; and it reads exactly: “John is thinking of the excellent mountain bike he saw last Sunday in the only sport shop in his town”. This description suggests strongly that what we are describing here is a relation (of thinking) obtaining between John and the bicycle in question, as illustrated by the following diagram: