In philosophy, it's customary to separate matter and form. Just as science does not lend itself well to the singular, so matter, it is said, does not lend itself well to discourse and theory. So it's more often than not form that assumes the bulk of the theoretical burden: it's up to form to account for the ideality of essences, the reality of properties, the unity of substance, individuation, the unification of the diverse (of perception in particular), not to mention the rigor of demonstrations and the beauty of appearances. But isn't that asking too much of him? For that matter, should we speak of "form" or "shapes"? Under such diverse functions, does the notion still retain an unequivocal meaning?
The colloquium will be devoted to elucidating these difficulties, with illustrations in the fields of metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of perception, logic and aesthetics.
