We can prove mostly geometrically that kinetic energy must be a function of $\vec{v}^2 \equiv \vec{v}\cdot \vec{v} = v_x^2+v_y^2+v_z^2$, but we need extra assumptions to prove that it is directly proportional to $\vec{v}^2$.
Define the kinetic energy to be a scalar quantity that depends on velocity, is conserved in elastic collisions, and is invariant under rotations of reference frame. To find the form of this quantity we need to find scalar invariant functions formed from $\vec{v}$ alone. We can reason geometrically that any such number is a function of $\vec{v}^2$. This is because rotations preserve lengths and angles, but with only one input vector the only invariant quantity is the length of the vector, given by $\sqrt{\vec{v}^2}$.
However, geometry alone is not enough to give us $E\propto \vec{v}^2$. This is clear because in classical mechanics $E\propto \vec{v}^2$, but in special relativity $E \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\vec{v}^2/c^2}}$. Both are functions of $\vec{v}^2$ because both theories are invariant under rotations, but they have different functional forms.
(The different forms are so that energy can be conserved in elastic collisions in all reference frames that differ by a boost in velocity. The two theories handle boosts differently, so the energies have different forms.)