Semantics...

Yeah. Adopting those is the only valid method of objection...

Ostriches...

Tapir...

The world could be a much better place...

That has little to do with Nixon's namesake and more to do with how to sensibly talk about it's being different and what else that would take. Denying possible world discourse shuts the door on taking deliberate well thought action for improvement. It denies a better world by virtue of stifling the vison.

I will just mention that I might have given my children my own surname, but I didn't. They might have taken their mother's surname, but they didn't. They each have their own unique surname. You might not think it sensible, but it is true. And since it is true in this case, it might have been true of Nixon's parents, and Nixon might have had another name.

Semantics...

That is the name of a loosely defined subject of thought/belief. It requires pre-existing thought/belief, because they involve out thinking about what sorts of things are meaningful and what makes them so.

Semantics involves conceptual schemes/linguistic frameworks. Some have clearly defined terms. Others do not. All require language.

Meaning does not.

Reference requires shared meaning. Shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures draw the same correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things that exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the aforementioned correlations. Shared meaning does not require language. Semantics does.

Meaning is prior to semantics. Successful reference is prior to semantics.

Some frameworks can properly account for the emergence of thought/belief, meaning, and the presupposition of truth(as correspondence of course!) and others cannot. When this comes to the light of day and one resorts to saying "semantics", there's not much else to say to that person...

When this comes to the light of day and one resorts to saying "semantics", there's not much else to say to that person... — creativesoul

Meh

Semantics matter. But when a framework is shown lacking, "semantics" isn't the sort of response that shows that that lacking had been rightfully grasped or valued.

Oh, and I do owe you an apology... Should have taken step or two backwards...

What do you mean taken a step or two backward?

Thought better about some of the earlier replies.

That's fine.

Given that this thread is concluding, do you want to recap on the things you have learned from Kripke's Naming and Necessity?

Well, Kripke relies on actual practices, and it seems than nearly all who oppose what he's claiming here, which isn't some grand replacement theory but a better account of actual examples, work from logical fictions...

Well, Kripke relies on actual practices, and it seems than nearly all who oppose what he's claiming here, which isn't some grand replacement theory but a better account of actual examples, work from logical fictions... — creativesoul

I don't really understand what you mean here. Can you expand?

I don't really understand what you mean here. Can you expand? — Wallows

The 'good' arguments against Kripke rest their laurels upon logical possibility and coherency alone. They work from (mis)conceptions.