I&#x27;m (probably badly) summarizing Lakoff &amp; Nunez&#x27;s book:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Where_Mathematics_Comes_From" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Where_Mathematics_Comes_From</a><p>Neither are capital-P Philosophers, and I don&#x27;t remember if they actually make a claim that their ideas are philosophically distinct from fictionalism- they&#x27;re more worried about platonists!<p>The other approach I&#x27;m fond of is saying mathematical objects exist but only inside the heads of mathematicians. As long as mathematicians share a particular idea and can talk about it, it&#x27;s math. So when I point to the real numbers, I&#x27;m pointing at a real thing: the shared idea of them. There&#x27;s no Platonic realm, but they exist in the mind. It parallels how mathematics is really done (a proof is only a proof if it convinces mathematicians) so I find it compelling on that front.