site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Who is building beautiful things these days in the public realm?

I'll keep making the same reply whenever I see complaints about beauty---any judgement like this depends on your own, idiosyncratic aesthetic preferences. Personally, I find new ideas in math and science to be the most beautiful thing in the world and the quality and amount of this that is being discovered/made publicly available has never been greater. I am extremely happy to have this even at the possible cost of whatever's going on in our physical environment. I also don't think similar aesthetic preferences are that rare, especially in a community like this one.

So I completely disagree, by a very reasonable definition of "beauty", we are in a golden age of people creating beauty in the public realm (you just have to go beyond physical things).

(you just have to go beyond physical things).

That's a pretty big ask to tack on in parentheses.

I've decided to abstain from responding to you the last time you wrote it, because – as before – I did not recognize you as a good faith interlocutor. (Btw, @2rafa, despite listening to OSTs often I just dislike Zimmer's music and Zimmer personally, but then again I'm not very into Wagner and all that Teutonic BS either). Thinking back on it, you might just find some aspects of the German character amiable. After all, Berdyaev did say in «Religion of Germanism»:

Germans are least of all materialists, if by materialism we mean accepting the external world as material in its objectively real composition. The whole of German philosophy has an idealistic direction and materialism could be in it only an accidental and insignificant phenomenon.
The German is neither dogmatist nor skeptic; he is a critic. He starts by rejecting the world, by not recognizing the externally, objectively given existence as a «critical reality». The German is physically and metaphysically a northerner, and the external, objective world does not appear to him illuminated by sunlight, as it does to the people of the south, as it does to the Romance peoples. For the German, the primary sense of being is, first of all, the primary sense of his will, his thought. He is a voluntarist and an idealist. He is musically gifted and plastically artless. Music is still a subjective spirit, an inner state of mind. Plastics is already an objective, embodied spirit. But in the sphere of objective, embodied spirit Germans were able to create only extraordinary technology, industry, militaristic tools, and not beauty. The tastelessness of the Germans, which appalls in even the greatest of them, even Goethe, is due to the transfer of the center of gravity of life to the inner tension of will and thought. On the side of sensuality, as an aesthetic category, the Germans are not at all acceptable or tolerable. And in the life of feeling they can only be merely sentimental.
A true, deep German always wants, having rejected the world as something dogmatically imposed and critically unverified, to recreate it out of himself, out of his spirit, out of his will and feeling. This direction of the Germanic spirit was determined as early as in the mysticism of Eckhart, it exists in Luther and in Protestantism, and is found and grounded with great force in the great Germanic idealism, in Kant and Fichte, and in another way in Hegel and Hartmann. It would be wrong to call this direction of the Germanic spirit phenomenalism. It is a kind of ontologism, an ontologism of a sharply voluntaristic bent. […] This consciousness is very taut, always disciplined and organized from within, from its own depths, in which lies the foundation of the Germanic will, the strong will. Such a consciousness is imposing but aesthetically unappealing. And it must be said that the tragedy of Germanism is, above all, the tragedy of excessive will, too possessive, too intense, recognizing nothing outside itself, too exclusively masculine, the tragedy of the inner celibacy of the Germanic spirit. It is a tragedy opposite to the tragedy of the Russian soul. The German people are a wonderful people, a powerful people, but a people devoid of any charm.

But, of course, Berdyaev spoke of German intellectuals – mainly as they appeared to him in written media. This would be as naive as judging Anglo Dasein/Umwelt/Weltanschauung by their stiff-lipped Victorian hypocrisy.

I knew normal Germans. To ask of normal people, even Germans, to be satisfied with just this is, at best, a ludicrous demand for universal ascetic monasticism; more likely it is mere cope. You can call math beautiful all you want, but math remains a niche, inaccessible (no, condescending popular renditions don't count) realm, and it doesn't have remotely the dimensionality to saturate human experience for any but the most obsessed, broken specimens. We are physical beasts, homeostatic machines connected to the world through a multimodal sensor array and burdened with demanding natural priors with narrow optimal response ranges, that ensure we can't stop caring about what happens around us. We are grounded in reality, so for our own sanity we should see pleasing sights on the ground level – pleasant faces, buildings, furniture, plants and so on. And in terms of intangible art, it need be grounded in baseline human experience as well – thus, even videogames with narratives touch us more than the most contrived category theory wankery; and the capacity to produce such videogames says more about the people's cultural capacity than having some Hausdorff Center for Mathematics. Some Germans can into math. Great. Math isn't about Germans, though. Math isn't about humans at all. And Germans know this as well as I do.

Suggesting a person take refuge from the squalor of the material world in the work of Peter Scholze is as ridiculous and cruel as telling a hungry person to contemplate some 19th century still-life paintings of peaches or whatever; a person who wants sex to embrace the holy love of Virgin Mary (and we know that this just ends in pathetic perversion). Speaking of, the best mathematicians I interact with have high libido, they seem to need lots of intense, dirty sex. (For more traditionally creative types this needn't even be said). They also care vastly more about art than I do, somehow – some fantasy book series, musical performances, and yes, even video games.

Humans are humans, they are not spirit engines for contemplating toy imaginary structures. With this «what even is beauty, ackchyually» you deny us our humanity. And I suspect you do this to excuse the expropriation of control over the physical world from people who do not satisfy your elitist cerebral standards.

I've decided to abstain from responding to you the last time you wrote it, because – as before – I did not recognize you as a good faith interlocutor.

You are under no obligation to reply to anything, though you also have no justifiable reason to claim that I'm not a good faith interlocutor. It's like clockwork, every time you reply to something I post here it needs to include at least one unjustified personal attack. Please stop.

As for the rest of your comment, this is just a very poetic way to express what it feels like to be confronted with aesthetic preferences different from your own. The point of my original comment is explained in more detail here and the way to argue against it is to discuss why your personal aesthetic preferences are actually universal enough, not post a bunch of poetry about why you think they're superior.

I think my reasons are justified for years now, and you have not appropriately expressed remorse for your terrible faux-rationalist rhetoric back on reddit before continuing it here, so I'd rather you start making arguments in good faith than I stop reminding people of your track record. By the way, putting on a layer of patronizing Brahmin politeness improves your performance somewhat, but not by a lot, I suggest you leave it for your workplace.

the way to argue against it

There is no need to argue against a vacuous truism that something is "true" if we assume an arbitrary classification system where it is true; only an infertile mind of a pedant can be satisfied with such an argument. I of course agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in principle some people can recognize whatever as beautiful, even a slum filled with diseased drug addicts where one gets to read Scholze's papers. And Wittgenstein masturbated to mathematical problems in the trenches of World War I, after all. But the reason we know of this fact is precisely that it is unusual, baffling. Your preferences, if those are your preferences indeed, are marginal, thus prioritizing them would be unsatisfactory to most people; you're free to put the opposite hypothesis to a democratic test and, I'd expect, get the same result as here in any group except self-selected minority of mathematical ascetics.

Though there may be something more here. Naturally this ties in to your general theme that white people ought to welcome being replaced by "elite human capital" like yourself. White people did not think to implement a filter for compatible aesthetic preferences, even as they demanded professional merit and some minimum of adherence to the letter of the law; so now there'll be a marginally greater tendency for their habitats to approximate the noisy, debased squalor of the subcontinent, complete with galaxy-brained equivocation excusing this. Too bad.

I was vaguely amused to see this pop up in the janitorial duties, this is probably one of the most eloquently written comments that's not there for 'Quality Contribution'.

That said, is there really a need for a fallacy in every sentence? The whole first paragraph is just bad blood coagulated into an ugly scab that's regurgitated ad hominem.

Next, I don't see @atokenliberal6D_4 suggesting mathematics is beautiful or a salve for diseased slums, just a counterpoint to the general narrative of decay and deterioration that permeates contemporary (and perhaps all human) rhetoric. You prop up a straw Colossus and then toss it ad populum, for them to supposedly tear apart with their physical, homeostatic hands.

As a crown of thorns for this cute little sophistical sermon, you conjure up some bizarre racial slippery slope whereby lack of aesthetic compatibility is leading to the decay of civilization.

The tone and style had me err on Bad, but after writing this up this I think it honestly deserves a warning it's so grotesquely specious.

Modern architecture is mostly horrific for reasons elaborate upon a myriad times. Usually having to do with architectural schools, snobbery and that the last pre-apocalyptic generations have died.. generations ago.

general narrative of decay and deterioration that permeates contemporary (and perhaps all human) rhetoric

You can't argue we are not decaying. People in 1960s had the entire world at their fingertips. Energy is wealth, always has been, and especially so since the invention of electricity. Unparalleled growth without having to pollute was available.

For the first time in human history, we're utterly free from the need to burn stuff for energy. Yet what do Europeans do ? They erect barriers so that this doesn't happen. According to those nice graphs by German economic ministry, per capita energy production in Germany right now should've been 5x current level. The entire country could have been carbon-free, with electric heaters everywhere and probably enough energy to spare to move to entirely synthetic fuels.

No need for Russians, Americans, Arabs or even strip mining!

Where are we ? Collapsing industries due to energy costs, debt up to almost everyone's eyeballs.. europe is importing dead trees from America to burn in power plants and patting itself on the back for it being low-carbon!

The French were the only one who kind of grasped it yet they hadn't gone far enough. Still they have very affordable power and a great pollution profile.

Modern architecture is mostly horrific for reasons elaborate upon a myriad times. Usually having to do with architectural schools, snobbery and that the last pre-apocalyptic generations have died.. generations ago.

Define modern. The Louvre pyramid for example, widely decried at conception, is now a architectural monument to modernism at the heart of one of the pinnacle achievements of Renaissance work. Niemayer in Brazil? Le Corbusier? Art Deco in the 30s?

You can't argue we are not decaying.

Chill with the consensus buliding.

Collapsing industries due to energy costs

This is temporary nonsense due to geopolitical machinations. Gasoline is more expensive in the US than it historically has been, but electricity has fallen almost 100% since 1900, despite machinery and tools becoming vastly more efficient (not to mention the exponential compounding of computing power for fixed energy use). CPI-adjusted electricity has continued to fall since 2000, from 0.172 to 0.159 $/kWh.

Define modern. The Louvre pyramid for example, widely decried at conception, is now a architectural monument to modernism at the heart of one of the pinnacle achievements of Renaissance work. Niemayer in Brazil? Le Corbusier?

The Louvre pyramid is hideous. So is everything by Le Corbusier, whose autism is now less of a secret. Of course someone with sensory abnormalities and rigid thinking is going to like soul-less geometric architecture.

Brasilia, the city, is an example of how not to build cities. It has a few striking buildings, it's however not a good place to live at all.

This is temporary nonsense due to geopolitical machinations

You're insane. Gas imports from Russia are not coming back.

Large scale nuclear build-up is impossible without repurposing a bunch of European football stadiums into execution grounds and and getting rid of tens of thousands of bureaucrats, environmental activists, environmental lawyers and other people whose jobs are ensuring NOTHING EVER HAPPENS.

Europe is a hospice and will keep being so until we do the above.

but electricity has fallen almost 100% since 1900

.. isn't it up by 100% of percent since 1970?

There is nothing to his «counterpoint» but speciousness. «How could you say Germans don't produce beautiful art any more, they have Scholze!». They used to have Gauss, but they also had Beethoven and Caspar David Friedrich in the same era, and it is not through the former that they had accrued the reputation of people who can do art. We understand that mathematics is a very non-central case of artistic or aesthetic achievement. Worse yet, by cheekily claiming that the mainstream understanding of beauty is «idiosyncratic» (that is, somewhat unusual), he lies and gaslights.

you conjure up some bizarre racial slippery slope whereby lack of aesthetic compatibility is leading to the decay of civilization

Not decay of civilization as a whole, I admit this would be a stretch, but as for the decay of aesthetic standards assumed to be common sense, the causal relationship is trivial enough. South Asian (Indian, really) culture is amazingly tolerant of squalor, dirt and ugliness, not only by White/European/First World standards – nowhere else, in no destitute hellhole, do people care so little to maintain cleanliness and tasteful sights. this has been discussed to death here and elsewhere (I would also say they are near-universally tasteless, more so than Germans, but that's more objectionable). It is reasonable to expect that transplants from this culture, ceteris paribus, will be less demanding aesthetically, and prioritize some other stuff.

We understand that mathematics is a very non-central case of artistic or aesthetic achievement.

How widely appreciated are Beethoven or Caspar David Friedrich nowadays?

the decay of aesthetic standards assumed to be common sense

Consensus building.

I'll bite that many countries in development are less likely to invest in architectural aesthetics and maintenance, but this has always been the case for politically/economically unstable regions. Is there evidence that Indians in the United States who become Americanized (2nd, 3rd generation immigrants) and wealthy continue to neglect aesthetic construction?

Religion of Germanism

Never heard of it, but man is it accurate for my inner workings.

Conclusion:

In a complex relation to the "Germanic idea" stands Nietzsche, who in his spirit and blood was not a pure German. The Germanic spirit, a very strong spirit, wants in the end to produce a kind of Germanic religion of Germanism, which comes into antagonism with Christianity. There is no Christ's spirit in this religion. Now Drewes is an archetypal exponent of this religion of Germanism, as well as Chamberlain. Р. Wagner was its prophet. It is a purely Aryan, anti-Semitic religion, a religion of smooth and unleavened monism, without mad antinomianism, without apocalypse. There is no repentance and no sacrifice in this Germanic religion. The German is least capable of repentance. And he may be virtuous, moral, perfect, honest, but he can hardly be holy. Repentance is substituted with pessimism. Germanic religion attributes the source of evil to an unconscious deity, to the original chaos, but never to man, never to the Germanic man himself. The Germanic religion is the purest monophysitism, the recognition of only one and one nature, the divine, and not of two natures, the divine and the human, as in the Christian religion. Therefore, no matter how high, to all appearances, this Germanic religion elevates a man – it, after all, in the deepest sense denies man as a distinctive religious beginning.

In such a purely monistic, monophysite religious consciousness there can be no prophecies of a new life, a new world epoch, a new earth and a new heaven, no quest for a new city, so characteristic of Slavism. German monistic organization, German order do not allow apocalyptic experiences, do not tolerate feelings of the coming of the end of the old world, they fixate this world in a bad infinity. The Germans leave the apocalypse entirely to the Russian chaos, so despised by them. And we, in turn, despise this eternal German order.

The Germanic world is Central Europe by and large. German ideologists recognize the Germans as the creators and custodians of Central European culture. They consider France, England, Italy, Russia to be the outskirts of Europe. The fate of Germanism is presented as the fate of Europe, the victory of Germanism is understood as the victory of European culture. The religion of Germanism recognizes the German people as the only pure Aryan race, which is called to establish European spiritual culture not only by the efforts of the spirit, but also by blood and iron. Germanism would like to consolidate forever the global supremacy of central Europe, it seeks to extend its influence to the East, to Turkey and China, but it prevents the genuine transcending of Europe and insular European culture. Everywhere Germanism, obsessed with the idea of its exclusive cultural mission, carries its insular-European and insular-German culture, enriching itself with nothing, recognizing no one and nothing in the world.... And these claims of German-European centralism are a great obstacle in the way of connecting East and West, i.e. of solving the main task of world history.

These exclusive claims of the Germanic spirit are exactly that which cannot be borne by the rest of the world. German ideologists even turned the racial anthropological theory about the exclusive advantages of long-headed blondes into a kind of religious Germanic messianism. Instead of "Aryans" they introduced the term "Indo-Germans". The spirit of Teutonic pride has permeated all Germanic science and philosophy. Germans are not content with an instinctive contempt for other races and peoples; they want to despise on a scientific basis, to despise in an orderly, organized and disciplined manner. German self-confidence is always pedantic and methodologically sound. We Russians can least of all endure the domination of the pretensions of the religion of Germanism. We must oppose it with our own spirit, our own religion, our own aspirations. This does not prevent us from appreciating the great phenomena of the Germanic spirit, from nourishing ourselves with them, as with all the great things in the world. But the pride of the Germanic will must be opposed with our own religious will. Central Germanic Europe cannot acquire world domination, its idea is not a global idea. In the Russian spirit lies the greater Christian universalism, a greater recognition of all and everything in the world.

Published in June 1916

Didn't work out well for either party (well, Berdyaev himself did okay, first in Berlin, then in Paris). But Russians got their minute of fame as the standard bearers of the new worldwide Messianic delusion, making full use of German-Jewish faux-materialism.

I don’t think Zimmer is a great composer (certainly not in the pantheon of great Jewish composers). He has suffered from the Inception foghorn becoming a central meme in film scoring, though. It’s quite endearing he posts, aged 65 and probably along with John Williams the single most recognizable name in his field, on niche music composition forums to dunk on his critics though, especially of the “post track, retard” variety.

I like to think that if the other person had dropped something stellar he would have made true of his offer to have them score a major movie.

any judgement like this depends on your own, idiosyncratic aesthetic preferences

This is a false premise not supported by any evidence. There are loads of commonalities that humans find aesthetically pleasant. Things like nature, symmetry, balance etc. Sure, you might be a massive outlier but then who cares? Outliers are irrelevant when it comes to what should be provided in the public realm.

They are beautiful. But I still want beauty in the built world as well. There’s something about a beautiful building that you can’t get in maths. There a sense that people put time and effort into making a nice building and it sort of says that this world or at least this part of it is worth making beautiful.

While I acknowledge your point, I still find this response unsatisfying. As relative mid-wit here, I probably don't have the IQ to truly understand and appreciate the beauty of higher-level maths or sciences. Are me and mine just SOL, no beauty for us?

You might be satisfied by a world of physical ugliness as long as there still remains mathematical beauty, but what about the 99.999% of people in America alone (let alone the world) who can’t appreciate the latest advances in higher category theory? What do you say to them? “Shit guys, sorry, but you should’ve gotten a math degree and/or been born with a 2SD higher IQ lol”? If you’re coming from a position of unrepentant elitism (and I write this without any intent to sneer; I know a good number of people who subscribe to this ideology and would describe themselves as such) who doesn’t care one whit about the aesthetic deprivation of the proles, then this is consistent, I guess. But I can’t get behind this view, and I suspect that most who decry the course that modern architecture has taken think similarly to me in this.

Not every field in math and science is as abstruse and inaccessible as higher category theory. For example, look up any recent breakthrough in biology: MRNA vaccines, techniques for neural imaging, etc. You don't need to be an expert to be in awe of the clever things people had to come up with to make these work. There's also a ton of beauty being created in recreational math---see for example the elegance of something like this. Anyone can understand that! Even better, popular science/math exposition is also getting better and better so even the "serious" ideas are more accessible than they ever were before---even aspects of your example of higher category theory are open to way more of the population than you claim these days.

Sure not everyone is capable of appreciating every aspect, but this is like saying that novels are a super elitist form of beauty because only English professors have a hope of understanding everything in Ulysses.

I kind of see what you're getting at, there is something profound in using our human intellects to engineer away bodily suffering and codify the processes of doing so, or formulate an elegantly simple solution to a knotty problem, but it lacks the aesthetic dimensions that satisfy the more earthly senses.

There are some fairly simple principles to what most people consider beautiful and aesthetically pleasing and they carry across from art and architecture to music and magazine models, and they can indeed often be codified in mathematical terms. Repetition, rhythm, ratio, harmony, symmetry, dynamics, variation, proportion, and other more human or purpose specific ergonomics, plus any embedded textual and subtextual communication. These are not idiosyncratic preferences. They're timeless, real, and to a degree they're intuitive. It's the same things that make clowns and caricatures funny by getting it wrong via exaggeration. We have thousands of years of practice and improvement in these matters, and while cost constraints are a perennial consideration there's no reason to abandon them entirely or pretend they don't exist.

It's a bit like cookery. Only the most wretched poor, prisoners on punishment, or an ascetic monk would be expected to eat plain grains. But on the other end of the scale even the richest royalty aren't eating an entire bowl of pure saffron. There's a Goldilocks balance of complexity to aim for and a lot of post-war culture has either gone for too little (brutalism, soylent meal replacement drinks), too much (3D cinema, "experimental" ""music"", 87 flavours of hot sauce, Times Square, tinnitus level audio amplification, etc) or a ruthless bean-counting (sub)optimising (I don't know, plastic cutlery? or pockets that are only deep enough for your fingertips). To paraphrase Marie Kondo, those things don't spark joy, or comfort, or contentment. They spark under/over-stimulation and alienation, and those make society a sad panda.

I'm a midwit. These videos don't do anything for me. At best, they prompt a "well, that's neat" reaction, and nothing else. Without trying to be dismissive, somebody waxing about the beauty of mathematics comes off as very wanky. I can sort of grok what they're getting at, and understand that their brains are wired very differently from mine. It is certainly very interesting, but nothing that can elicit the same gut punch of awe and appreciation from my favorite film or still image; the ceiling of a well-constructed chapel (I'm not even religious) or the stature of an ancient monument; a quaint Shire-like village in the mountains or a barren desert bereft of human imprint. I can imagine myself and many others breaking down in tears when confronted with any of the above. Somebody moved to mania by a formula on a whiteboard and an accompanying 30-minute Youtube explainer would be... completely alien to me. There's way too much thinking involved for me to consider this beautiful in any meaningful sense, when what I think most people are gesturing towards are phenomenon and constructs that could catch one unawares and demand their gaze and attention.

I'm happy that some people can 'get off' on stuff like this, since I'm not sure where we'd be today if they didn't exist. But I don't see the aesthetics, or what the common man should take away from them other than perhaps an eyerolling "Yes, yes, you're so smart that you don't need the beauty of this material Earth - numbers are totally sufficient." Perhaps that only attests to my aforementioned midwittery, but it is honest.

I certainly wouldn't want such people charged with any attempted beautification project. No offense.

Unfortunately, I’m not able to watch your videos right now, but I’ll give them a look when I can.

In general, while I do appreciate the fact that the beauty found in mathematics and the sciences is becoming more accessible, I still disagree for two reasons. First: as accessible as they might be becoming, I believe that there’s still a large gap between the number of people who can appreciate even a Numberphile video versus the number of people who walk through Grand Central Station and are awestruck.

And that leads me to my second reason: I am inclined to believe that the aesthetic experience that most people get from beautiful architecture is qualitatively different from that which they’d receive from, say, reading about advances in biology. Don’t you think that a medieval peasant is more likely to be floored and filled with the awe of God when they walk into a Gothic cathedral than when they are informed of the finer points of scholastic philosophy? Maybe I’m just typical-minding here, but I wager that for most people monumental and beautiful architecture just hits something primal in a way that more intellectual beauty does not. And if there’s a cross-over point where the latter sort of art does bear greater aesthetic fruit than the former, I would also suppose that it comes at a point inaccessible to the majority of the human population.

I do understand your position. Though I don’t deal in math nearly as advanced as you, there are times when, at the end of a long derivation, some elegant formula will pop out, and I’ll find myself floored. But I fear that it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to find this same joy.

(This is also a reply to @5434a)

I don't think I want to argue that there aren't any aspects of aesthetic preferences that are held universally enough to be objective. I just want to make the narrow claim that the common condemnation of 21st-century Western culture that it is particularly bad at producing beauty is questionable enough that it is completely dependent on idiosyncratic personal preferences that lie on top of these more universal considerations.

To do this, I gave an example of an idiosyncratic preference that I thought was within the bounds of reasonable that also judges modern, western society as exceptionally good at producing beauty. There are others that also suffice, some based on more earthy considerations that may feel more compelling to you. For example, it's not implausible that many medieval peasants may be more in awe of the Manhattan skyline or the Ground Zero memorial than a Gothic Cathedral. It's also not implausible that many might think the dramatically increased accessibility of natural beauty---Banff, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Iguazu Falls, things medieval peasants can't even dream of---is worth the cost of having cookie-cutter suburbia everywhere.

I'm not completely incapable of find aesthetic pleasures in certain weird number sequences but I don't think of MRNA vaccines or neural imaging techniques as beautiful. I think "hey, neat!" or "that's an impressive feat" but beauty never comes top-of-mind for me for a lot of scientific advancements. You and I are probably operating off entirely different definitions of what's beautiful.