/lit/ - Literature

>>11744113
>but that still does not imply a universal quality of beauty which -precedes- the observer's nature.
Do you think things like maths or geometry precede the nature of the observer? Take for example page 1 of Euclid where he proves the equilateral triangle with a line and the two circles etc. Is the elegance of his proof dependent on those brain chemicals or does it exist outside them? Not saying there's a right answer mind (though obviously I know what I think).

I've read Meno, and conclusion is, that you cant learn virtue, and it is given or not by Gods. I dont quite agree with it, i thinks its kinda useless conclusion, its sad that i cant do anything to be more virtuous. Also i think one should not agree with Socrates all the time, its more about method. I think thats why "philosophy is footnote to Plato", because people have disagreed with him, yet he gave them method, with which they could phrase this disagreement. I am not talking only about dialectism method, but how important is to look for essence of being, essence of "shape" instead of taking instances as definition of class.

Also: do you believe in anamnesis? Socrates thought that math is key to anamnesis, people know some basic math prior to any education, because they know it from previous math. He "proved" it by asking slave some questions about geometry. Pic related: i dont think this riddle is this easy, and slave probably had some education, despite what he said.