Final answer:
Aristotle would consider the Forms to be part of the formal cause, as they give shape and essence to material substance, contrary to Plato's view of them as abstract entities. The form of an object is intrinsically tied to its material, and together they make up the substance of that object.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aristotle would consider the Forms to be part of the formal cause. Unlike Plato who viewed Forms as abstract, immutable entities that exist beyond the physical world, Aristotle grounded his theory in physical reality, believing that forms give shape and essence to material substance, constructing reality as we experience it. In other words, while Plato regarded Forms as independent and perfect entities, Aristotle saw them as intrinsic to the things themselves, the blueprint that defines their nature.
To apply this to an everyday example, think of a sculpture: for Aristotle, the form of the sculpture (what makes it recognizable as, say, a statue of a lion) is the formal cause. The material used (like marble or bronze) would be the material cause, the sculptor's craft would be the efficient cause, and the purpose or function of the sculpture would be the final cause. The form is essential to its substance, interwoven with the material rather than existing distinctly like Plato's otherworldly Forms.