Cuil can be applied to classical philosophy in such a way as to clarify ideas presented or to in fact obfuscate them to the point of demonstrating if not their lack of validity the lack of reliability they possess.
Platonic Representation At 0‽ Platonism is effectively the standard as each object is the epitome of what it could be referred to as. This is true only of simple things however. Once abstract ideas are represented Platonically things are no longer as absolutely normal as we would expect to see at 0‽ This is effectually extruding ideas from the negative levels of ‽ that we would expect to see these hyperreal ideas or objects manifest at. That is, although „it“ might be quintessential honor, this is generally not something that is normal by any stretch of the word. Abstract concepts though logical and self consistent exist Platonically only at negative levels of cuil. This is resolved though mathematically as is probably best shown by the following: Let quintessential honor exist only at -2‽. Requesting this in our lab at 0‽ absolute normalcy demands it come forth. This extrudes the concept of quintessential honor well beyond it's base threshold of -2‽ resulting in an increase in ‽ in our previously 0‽ lab. In this case the increase demanded would be 2‽ to compensate for the abstraction of the -2‽ concept of quintessential honor to our lab's levels. What this means ultimately is that there is no net change and no violation of our lab's reality. K‽+-X‽=K‽+X‽ is the equation which effectively demonstrates that certain occurrences are bound to their natural levels of ‽. Cuil in a constant environment remains constant. Thus, while Platonism remains effective at ‽-x levels and indeed at higher levels of ‽ if proper liberties are taken it is simply not a philosophy that can be applied to any more than one levels of ‽ at a time while remaining self consistent.
Ordinary Language Philosophy This is, perhaps the best school of thought to apply to ‽. At 0‽ words are defined, by intent rather than by some distant idealized meaning. „Shark“ for instance has either the meaning of a slick loan officer or a horrible, murderous water monster dependent on it's use rather than being a general representation of the concept of predatory instinct. What this means is that it can effectively be used to quickly rationalize our universe at extremely high levels of ‽ as well as at extremely hyperreal levels. This is important insofar as Ordinary Language Philosophy recognizes, both independently and contextually the meaning of the word „horse“ at any depth. At 6‽ when „Horse“ is a word that is synonymous with the shape of a rotary dial telephone but only a different color than you're thinking of with ears like book full of impressionist paintings by a blind woman Ordinary Language Philosophy would allow one to understand that and further process it into whatever meaningful information might be gleaned from it. Further, This is a useful philosophy at -‽. Let's say at -4‽ We reach a certain absolute level of horse, this is immediately understood in it's own environment by the Ordinary Language Philosophy.