Platonism

a very peculiar nature; it was a morsel of platonism, which is rather too curious to pass unrecorded; for as far as I have been able, upon the most minute investigation to ascertain, they never spoke to each other during the period of their tender acquaintance. ❋ Various (N/A)

‘UN platonism’, as Michael Glennon once memorably called it. ❋ Unknown (2009)

One might object here that in order for humans to acquire knowledge of abstract objects in this way, they would first need to know that plenitudinous platonism is true. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

Section 3 will develop and assess the first important argument in favor of platonism, namely, the One Over Many argument. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

Linsky & Zalta respond to this by arguing that plenitudinous platonism (or in their lingo, principled platonism) is knowable a priori because it is required for our understanding of any possible scientific theory: it alone is capable of accounting for the mathematics that could be used in empirical science no matter what the physical world was like. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

The most important figure in the development of modern platonism is Gottlob Frege (1884, 1892, 1893-1903, 1919). ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

Thus, we should think of this argument not as refuting platonism but as issuing a challenge to platonists. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

On the other hand, the idealism, or more precisely the platonism, can accomodate the natural laws, mathematics, as well as the idea of God. ❋ Sean (2009)

“Between platonism and phenomenalism: Reply to Cao.” ❋ Ladyman, James (2009)

Linsky & Zalta develop plenitudinous platonism by proposing a distinctive plenitude principle for each of three basic domains of abstracta: abstract individuals, relations (properties and propositions), and contingently nonconcrete individuals (1995, 554). ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

Of course, platonism about any of these kinds of objects is controversial. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

A fourth and final version of the third strategy, developed independently (and somewhat differently) by Balaguer (1995, 1998a) and Linsky & Zalta (1995), is based on the adoption of a particular version of platonism called plenitudinous platonism (Balaguer also calls it full-blooded platonism, or FBP, and Linsky and Zalta call it principled platonism). ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

Finally, section 5 will develop and assess the most important argument against platonism, namely, the epistemological argument. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

It may be objected that according to the definitions we've been using, views like Maddy's are not versions of platonism at all, because they do not take mathematical objects to exist outside of spacetime. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

The philosophico-theological ideas of those who employed this method were very diverse, encompassing varying degrees of Neo-platonism and Neo-aristotelianism, and several of them, including St. Thomas, were at times suspected of heresy. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Thus, in order to use this argument to motivate platonism, one would have to supplement it with some reason for thinking that the properties in question here could not be ideas in our heads or immanent properties existing in particular physical objects. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

But according to this sort of platonism, properties are not the only universals; there are other kinds of universals as well, most notably, relations. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

The second option is to assume that the natural laws are separate entities from the basic set of spacetime and matter, and this leads directly to platonism, i.e. the view that abstract ideas have an independent existence outside spacetime. ❋ Sean (2009)

Thinkers inspired by traditions such as pragmatism and/or Wittgensteinian anti-platonism might also require these rules to be, in some sense, of our own making ❋ Glüer, Kathrin (2009)

Now, of course, the question of whether Maddy's view counts as a version of platonism is purely terminological; but whatever we say about this, the view is still worth considering in the present context, because it is widely thought of as one of the available responses to the epistemological argument against platonism, and indeed, that is the spirit in which Maddy originally presented the view. ❋ Balaguer, Mark (2009)

He is having a [platonic relationship] with her friend Jane. They both knew that the relationship that they have is [platonic love], in short platonic [nonsense]. ❋ Angelicbeach (2009)

[Olympic] champion ice dancers [Tessa] and Scott are purely [platonic] ❋ Em99 (2018)

Platonic [Yes] I'll [do it]. ❋ Mennäperille (2019)

Harry/[Hermione] shipper: OMG HARRY AND [HERMIONE] ARE SO MEANT TO BE!!! NOT THAT IDIOT RON AND THAT OBSESSIVE SLUT GINNY!!! Me: Oh my god, stop being so delusional. Harry and [Hermione's] love for each other is entirely platonic, and if you read the books, you would see that Harry and Ginny as well as Ron and Hermione are meant to be. ❋ Stefanvh (2014)

[My feelings] [for you] are [strictly platonic]. ❋ YoYOdawgg (2009)

[My best] [platonic friend] always told me I would see the pattern more clearly as time went. I'll always love him for his [insight]. ❋ Echo Nova (2021)

Bro, [platon] is [so lit] and [hot] 🔥 ❋ KidCutta YT (2020)

[Platonic] relationships often don't work because people become [hellbent] on ending them, on the [assumption] that they don't work, or because they are just jealous. ❋ Fwe22 (2006)

[Hoe]: [Yo], Platon is so [fucking cool]. ❋ Hoesnapper (2019)

[Sally] and [Jim] have a [platonic relationship]. ❋ Writer54 (2008)