 All right, let's remember Plato's four characteristics of form, known through reason. It's objective knowledge. Forms are universals and they are eternal. Okay, so we've got the four characteristics of form. Well, let's start with the first one, right? Does Aristotle reject the notion that form is known through reason? No, right? He keeps this notion, right? He says the form has to be known through reason. If he were to reject it, he'd have to say that what forms are somehow perceived. No, he doesn't do that. That they're known through emotion? No, he doesn't do that, right? He tries to give an account of how we know form through reason. Form through reason. So he keeps that characteristic of form. Objective knowledge is form objective for Aristotle. Well, if he rejects this, then form is just something that exists up here. It's not really of the thing. If we reject the idea that it's objective knowledge, we're saying everything I know about it is only what I believe about it, and it's not really knowing anything about that thing. It's just about my thoughts. So does he think form is just merely how we think about it? Well, no, right? He thinks when we get the form of a thing, we know something about that thing, not just something about ourselves. So he keeps the characteristic that form is objective knowledge. So he's got reason, and we've got objectivity. What about universal? So we've got several different objects. Plato says when we have several different objects of a kind, say chairs, we've got 10 chairs, they have the form in common. Form of chair is what they have in common. Does Aristotle reject this? No, he doesn't, right? He keeps the idea that form is what these things have in common, not just, you know, it's not just whatever this means, but a form for each individual thing. We wouldn't have 10 chairs, right? If we had, you know, on a platus concession, we have 10 chairs in project universality. We've got 10 items that I guess look a lot like each other, but they're actually different. So now Aristotle keeps the characteristic of universality with form, right? That's still the universal. Well, we only got one left, eternal. Now, Plato says forms are eternal. They're separately existing from the particular things. They exist in this kind of platonic realm, whatever that's going to be, of just abstraction. Plato rejects this conception. He says that form exists in the thing, right? Form is not separately existing, floating around out there, where the form or the particular objects just somehow participate in the form. Now, Aristotle says, if you want to know the form of this thing, you got to look at this thing. That's where the form is. If not eternal, they're temporal, right? Forms exist with the particular things. They cannot exist without them, right? Cannot exist without them. So we got the four characteristics of form, according to Plato. Then another reason, objective knowledge, the universals and their eternal, Aristotle rejects the last one. He says forms are temporal. They exist with and in the particular things.