Intentional objects and experience ―Response to my critics.

This article is a response to critics of the author's book on intentional objects and experience. The author clarifies their definition of intentional objects and addresses concerns raised by the critics. They argue that intentional objects, including appearances, are fully mind-dependent and exist in virtue of being represented by finite minds. The author also discusses the historical and contemporary use of intentional objects in philosophy and defends the usefulness of their account for explaining the nature of appearances. They address criticisms regarding the ontological status of intentional objects and the representation of empirical reality in Kantian philosophy, acknowledging alternative perspectives and the limitations of their own argument. The text concludes by discussing objections and responses to the author's account of experience in relation to Kantian philosophy, providing explanations and justifications while respecting diverse perspectives. [Extracted from the article]