Strong and Weak Platonists

So been reading Roger Penrose. He talks about whether Mathematics has an objective existance. He uses an example of a particular axiom, and splits mathematicians into two or three main groups based on their position on the objectivity of this axiom. Those who lean towards its objectivity he calls Strong Platonists, those less convinced he calls Weak Platonists. Basically the question is not so much that the number 1 is as physically as real as a table, but that the statement 1=1 is a statement of reality whether you believe it or not. 1 table is 1 table. Or that the statement "1 million frenchmen can't be wrong" is objectively false (or not) whether you believe it or not. (Im stretching his definition a little here)

He mentions how fields such as aesthetics or morality may be platonically real but are harder to demonstrate.

So two things. In the sense of Platonic Philosophy I am a Strong Platonist when it comes to love. It may not be the origin of all things, but when a person say "I love you," this is usually not a meaningless statement and usually refers to an actual state of affairs. I go a little further in my poetry and am willing to stand up and fight for the statement, "I am a tree, you are a cloud, as long as there is mud and water, our love will be around." So on this I am a Very Strong Platonist.

On Ethics I am a Weak Platonist. I believe there is right and wrong much as there is right and left, but knowing the difference between your two hands won't get you from Elland Road to Blarney Castle.

So as a Weak Platonist on Ethics, on Animal Rights I am a Weak Vegan. I make an effort to avoid animal exploitation as I judge it to be right on every score to do so, but I do not present myself as a role model and I may eat an egg or bacon sandwhich much as I may steal or cause property damage if I am not in the mood to be totally ethical.