ISSN 1811-833Х (Print)
ISSN 2311-7133 (Online)
The discussion of professor Nikiforov's statement had three main directions: the socio-philosophical (I.Kasavin, A.Antonovski), the analytical-philosophical (E.Lednikov and I.Michailov), and the formal semantic (E.Vostrikova). The argument in the social part of the discussion addressed the need to provide a wider account of what constitutes an object which would include the social factors. The analytical philosophical criticism tried to accound for Nikiforov's statement in the context of some general lines of criticism typical for analytical philosophy. Finally, the formal semantic perspective on Nikiforov's thesis presented an argument according to which formal semantics, as stated in a number of works of its classical representatives, follows the ontology of natural language and not the ontology preferable for other philosophical purpuses.