The text discusses the intentional relationship between thought and its "subject," addressing the semantic ambiguities inherent in the term. The author examines how identification is achieved through naming in mythical contexts and how it functions within narrativity. It is argued that narrativity alone cannot ensure the precise identity of a referent required for scientific methodology. Such precision is only attainable through the development and application of conceptual structures. Without concepts, thought relates to the "same" only approximately, relying on analogies and the accumulation of stories that may remain in tension with one another. Consequently, the author suggests that in a narrative context, it is more appropriate to speak of a "theme" rather than a "subject." The term "subject" implies clear boundaries that narrative means cannot strictly define. This reflection illuminates the transition from narrative to conceptual understanding and highlights the limitations of storytelling in achieving exact definitions and systematic knowledge.