>Characterizing this appreciation as perverse and inhuman is essentially taking offense to someone else's enjoyment in something they appreciate. Seems pointless.

it's a humanist critique of the use of language for rhetorical purposes...? the purpose is exactly to investigate what the significance of that particular word choice is.

The point being, that if not, we're still within the domain of the subjective. It seems arbitrary to allow one set of subjective descriptions and disallow another.

definitely less subjective than beautiful. and it's not arbitrary - i've alluded to an argument that can be made. i'm not going to spell it out because as usual no one on here is receptive anything that doesn't valorize stem.

So I cannot like the shape or form when I look at a proof or function? I cannot have my aesthetic senses pleased by looking at STEM field things?