If you think about the forms, and you consider them to be perfect and unattainable, then you decide that the necessities of perception dictate a pattern which translates into a form, then you see something which coresponds to that pattern then it is beautiful. People strive to overcome perception because it is incomplete. You can’t look at your own perceptual pattern because you have to use it to do so and thus there’s a problem of observation, You can however encounter something visually which mirrors what you can’t see about yourself, or about a universal, then you’ll become obsessed with it because it’s beautiful.
You infer the hell out of stuff, don’t be a fibber. If it is absurd, why not go further? Is there an extension beyond absurdity that by definition makes absurdity null and void? If not, it’s at least cerebral entertainment.
Man, promoting emesis, your sense of brotherhood is slipping. Oh hell no, you did not just say truth. Don’t give me that metaphysical balderdash, all truth is subjective, and non-existent outside the individual observer.
A thing “is”, an object “is” … “is” is all there is. Truth is a bogus supposition.
I think that weak definition is abuse. Data is always involved, except in the manner that sensory data is an inferred instance, unlike quantifiable processes or outcomes.