Thanks for sharing. This piece helps me better understand the New theory of Reference, in the historical context.

Here is the book where Soames, Smith engage with each other: https://www.amazon.com/New-Theory-Reference-Origins-Synthese...

The real crime here is Jim Holt’s writing style.

You say that but I usually don't read something as long as this on a whim. It's clearly not for everyone but I enjoyed Jim Holt's writing.

Yeah pretty incomprehensible. Reads like he enjoys the complexity of his sentence without care for the reader

>piped up one person of gender present, causing a hush to fall briefly over the gathering.

hah, person of gender.

Jim Holt's writing was gripping, read the whole affair. But now I'm left thinking that all this analysis of names is silly, and they are heavily overloaded and turing complete. Why even try to box them as something related to possible universes?

Fascinating read even though I did not understand all of it.

The man has just passed away and you drop a hit piece on him.

edit: my mistake

The linked article is not a hit piece on Kripke.

Not at all, and it was well worth the read - even for a non-philosopher.