Newton, with the bias of his time, sought to formulate all his [proofs in geometrical terms][1]. He was also a freemason, a cult-tradition that identifies divinity with architecture, and geometry - and that tradition of divine geometry goes back at least to Pythagoras. Newton had to do a great deal of work to recast things in that way. Was it a waste of time? It wasn't just about ideas of divinity, he had to follow his intuition, and it got him largely where he wanted to go (minus the alchemy). 

Finances were conducted in Roman numerals for hundreds of years after Indo-Arab ones were used for everything else, because they were felt to somehow be more reliable. Imaginary numbers still face opposition and problematising because they contradict our intuition, even though the generalisation of octonions is increasingly being looked to in explaining the exact array of subatomic particles we have. And mathematics of non-continuous, quantised, materials is still looked askance at, as somehow darkly sorcerous. 

Symmetry has proven to be probably the most powerful insight in physics. Elegance, and especially beauty, are often derided as heuristics, but frequently cited by deep thinkers and seen as manifested in their work. 

It's easy to think, why privelege geometry. But why privelege any type of mathematics, and put the insights and proofs from other branches on a lower pedastal? They are tools to think with, it's not about reifying the tools, but the thinking. 

  [1]: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/newtons-toolbox