Abstract

The aim of this article is to amend some misunderstandings about Franz Brentano's thesis of intentionality, defending a different interpretation from the current one about the nature of intentional object and intentional correlate, and proposing an analysis of the origin of this conceptual confusion. The main problem lies in his student Anton Marty's interpretation of the immanent object, paving the way for an immanentist reading of Brentano's theory of intentionality.