 While it is thus possible to present contents of judgment and presentational suggestives also have a communicative function that is analogous to that of statements and emotives, the question arises as to whether there are also contents (i.e. special objects) of presentation analogous to the contents (states of affairs, states of values) in the other two cases of mental acts. In this regard Marty undertakes to criticize his older view that there are indeed such contents under the heading of “immanent objects” (Marty 1908a 384–406). He no longer holds this view in his later writings and also rejects the notion of a thorough-going analogy between presentations and mental acts of the other two classes. As regards the old thesis that consciousness is always the consciousness of something, he endeavors to preserve this by appealing to the already mentioned notion of mind-dependent conformity to an object, which may be either actually or potentially named by the presentational suggestive (Marty 1908a 407–431). Thus Marty differs the meaning (Bedeutung) in the sense of the conceptual presentation to be evoked and the reference of names (das Gennante). He further offers interesting discussions of the differences concerning reference of general and singular names (definite descriptions and proper names). General names refer via their conceptual presentative content (mediantibus conceptibus – Marty 1908, 436) to indefinitely many objects of the extension fixed by the conceptual presentation. Singular descriptions are for Marty names which name via their complex conceptual concept definitely, but essentially incompletely, since a concept, however complex it is, can never “exhaust” the individuality of the object. Therefore various complex concepts can be used for one individual – “for example, teacher of Alexander the Great and founder of the peripatetic School for Aristotle” (Marty 1908, 438). Proper names refer definitely, but they leave completely undecided what objects is to be named by them and even what individual presentation is to be evoked by their use (Marty 1908, 439). The reference is fixed in the context of their introduction and the individual presentation evoked by the name can never be considered as the meaning of the proper name (Landgrebe 1934, 83–90, Gabriel 1990). Finally, it is also noteworthy that the autosemantic character of names does not stand on an equal footing with the autosemantic character of fictive statements, actual statements and emotives. To form an actual or fictive (merely presented) speech, which both are for Marty practical autosemantic expressions (praktische Autosemantica), we never use names in isolation. However even when used in isolation, names still have a certain kind of complete meaning in contrast to, for instance, mere particles or flexed substantives – due to this completeness Marty views names as theoretical autosemantic expressions (theoretische Autosemantica). (Marty 1908, 476–477, Funke 1924, 23) Moreover, he continues to uphold the thesis, as already found in Brentano’s work, that all mental acts which are not themselves presentations are founded on presentations (Marty 1908a: 479–489).