Gather initial thoughts and broad opinions about the book.

1. Saul Kripke’s book originated as a series of lectures, and the text maintains a conversational, informal tone. How did this spoken-word style affect your reading experience and your ability to grasp the complex philosophical arguments?

2. What was the single most challenging or paradigm-shifting idea you encountered in Naming and Necessity? 

3. The philosophical dialogue is a classic format for exploring complex ideas, famously used by Plato in works like The Republic. How does Kripke’s lecture-based monologue compare to the dialogue form as a method for presenting a philosophical argument?

Encourage readers to connect the book’s themes and characters with their personal experiences.

1. Kripke’s Gödel-Schmidt thought experiment hinges on the idea that we can successfully refer to someone even if our primary beliefs about them are wrong. Can you think of a public figure or even someone you know personally about whom you later discovered your main identifying beliefs were incorrect?

2. How does the idea of a “chain of communication” for names resonate with your own experience (59)? Think about how you learned the names of historical figures or even distant relatives; does the causal-historical picture feel like an accurate description of that process?

3. The book argues that natural kind terms like “water” and “gold” are defined by their essential internal structure, not their appearance. How has this idea changed the way you think about the everyday substances and objects around you?

4. What are your thoughts on Kripke’s heavy reliance on “ordinary intuition” as a key test for philosophical theories? Were there any points in the book where your own intuitions clashed with the conclusions he drew from his thought experiments?

5. The distinction between what is metaphysically possible (what could have actually been true) and what is epistemically possible (what we could imagine discovering) is crucial to Kripke’s argument. Can you recall a time when you thought something was possible, only to learn a new fact that revealed it was impossible from the start?

6. The reference of the name “Madagascar” famously shifted due to a historical error. Can you think of any other words or names whose references have changed over time? What do these shifts tell you about language as a social, evolving practice?

Examine the book’s relevance to societal issues, historical events, or cultural themes.

1. The causal-historical theory frames reference as a social, public activity rather than a private mental one. How does this view of language as a shared inheritance challenge or reinforce modern ideas about individual identity and self-creation?

2. How might Kripke’s argument against the mind-body identity theory influence contemporary discussions about artificial intelligence and consciousness? Does his reasoning pose a challenge to the idea that a sufficiently complex computer could ever truly feel pain or have experiences?

3. The book revives a form of essentialism, arguing that science discovers necessary truths about the world’s structure. What is the cultural significance of a philosophical view that defends the power of science to reveal objective, unchangeable essences?

Dive into the book’s structure, characters, themes, and symbolism.

1. What is the role of the Preface and Addenda in shaping your understanding of the main lectures? How do these sections clarify, reinforce, or even complicate the central arguments presented in the three lectures?

2. Which of Kripke’s many thought experiments did you find most persuasive in undermining the descriptivist theory? 

3. Kripke uses the distinction between fixing a reference and giving a meaning to dismantle the theories of Frege and Russell. How does the example of the standard meter stick in Paris effectively illustrate this critical difference?

4. How convincing did you find Kripke’s extension of his theory from proper names to natural kind terms like “tiger” or “water”? Do you think these terms function in the same way as names for individuals?

5. A key part of the text involves distinguishing Kripke’s views from those of other philosophers like Wittgenstein and Searle. How effectively does he characterize and critique these alternative “cluster concept” theories?

Encourage imaginative and creative connections to the book.

1. Imagine you’re tasked with explaining the concept of a necessary a posteriori truth to a high-school class. Design a simple, original thought experiment or a real-world example (not used in the book) that would make this idea clear and intuitive.

2. The “initial baptism” is a pivotal moment in the causal-historical theory of reference. Write a short, imaginative scene describing the naming of a newly discovered species, a groundbreaking scientific phenomenon, or a new artistic movement. Who performs the baptism, and how is the reference fixed?

3. If you were to design a thought experiment in the style of Kripke to probe the essential properties of a concept like “justice,” “art,” or “home,” what would your scenario look like? What core intuition would you try to isolate with your question?