Can you say, reification? "Form" is a rather high level abstract concept, not a 'thing' that can 'become one' with the mind. (I feel the tugs of Daoism returning, I am one with all, I am one with the form, I am one with the Dao - I'm so happy now!) [and who said Christianity was different from Daoism?]
This was one of Aristotle's ideas that Rand corrected and surpassed. This is akin to the problem of universals that Rand's conceptual development epistemology answered once and for all. The problem here is mistaking the way our minds work, and projecting as actual 'existence' those mental processes into the external world. There is no 'essence' of cat, no 'platonic forms' no 'causal forms' that represent a metaphysical template for the physical existence of all cats. This is simply reifying the 'concept' as a 'platonic form' or a 'causal form.'
This is the most common error that is almost universally committed in these discussions and elsewhere. Failing to make the distinction between a concept, especially an abstract, and a physically existent object - or even a universal principle. Renders the whole argument meaningless.
This is correct and well stated, but I'm afraid will be lost on those who have not even progressed to understanding the difference between percepts and concepts. How sad.
Odd, isn't it? What you stated seems so obvious, yet most philosophers, and virtually all theologians are completely incapable of understanding it. No metaphysics and no epistemology can be correct that incorporates this "universal essence" error. It is difficult to believe that this error, so easily and correctly dismissed by Ayn Rand, should be so vehemently defended and embraced by so many who seem otherwise intelligent enough to understand their error. However, there is a reason for it. Care to guess what it is?
Hank
That's Plato, not Aristotle.