Final answer:
Aristotle disagreed with Plato's concept of Forms as separate, transcendent entities. He instead viewed Forms as essence or 'whatness' intrinsic to physical objects, closely resembling mental constructs necessary to understand material substances.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aristotle's Perspective on Forms
Plato treated Forms as substantial and independent entities residing in a transcendent realm. In opposition, Aristotle, a keen critic and student of Plato, maintained that Forms cannot have an existence separate from particular things. Based on Aristotle's perspective, Forms do not exist as autonomous entities. Instead, he posited that they are immanent within the physical objects. These Forms equate to the essence or the 'whatness' of the object. Therefore, Aristotle would likely view Forms as closely related to, if not directly, the mental constructs necessary to understand the substance of material things—Object 1 is the most aligned with his philosophy.
To Aristotle, Form and matter are inseparable when it comes to substance, with Form providing the definition to matter. This substance, therefore, is not an abstract entity but rather exists concretely in the world as the composite of matter and Form. Aristotle argued that the reality and knowledge we have of objects come from observing the actual, concrete particulars in the world, through which we come to know their Forms.
For Aristotle, the Forms only 'exist' insofar as they are instantiated in concrete substances. He reasoned that Forms are not external, separately existent entities causing material objects but are intrinsic to the substances themselves. By this logic, we can discern that Aristotle found the influence of Form to be evident in its physical embodiment, not as an immaterial, otherworldly substance.