I was thinking about this further today and figured I should footnote that one needs to be careful to distinguish what parts of constructs are human and which are not—I'm not explicitly taking issue with Plato's forms, for example, though I may be calling for a nuanced interpretation of it.
For example, while I think human beauty is subhuman, it seems to me that beauty in general is superhuman, as there are clearly things that can be considered beautiful that humans don't judge so. Similarly, while mathematics may be subhuman, it seems to me that numbers and ratios and the like are superhuman, as these exist independently of our constructions and definitions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2024-03-20 03:14 pm (UTC)For example, while I think human beauty is subhuman, it seems to me that beauty in general is superhuman, as there are clearly things that can be considered beautiful that humans don't judge so. Similarly, while mathematics may be subhuman, it seems to me that numbers and ratios and the like are superhuman, as these exist independently of our constructions and definitions.