Aristotle says that the objects of experience are made up of matter which has taken up a form. This can be understood in a fairly unremarkable sense: in a statue of Aphrodite, the matter is marble, and the form is the shape of the goddess. However, there is also a metaphysical understanding. Prime matter is a mysterious sort of something that has no properties. Form is layered over this something to produce a substance. Aristotle says that prime matter cannot exist on its own, but only with a form layered over it.
It strikes me that to Aristotle, a form is almost like a concept. It is a comprehensible, perceptible structure overlayed on prime matter, and it is the form that enters into thought and reasoning, not the prime matter.
This seems similar to Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena, where prime matter is the noumena and the form is the phenomenon. According to Kant, the phenomenon arises out of the nature of human cognition. Like the form, it is the aspect of an object that can enter into thought and reasoning. The noumena, being inaccessible to our minds, is for practical purposes equivalent to prime matter.
I was just wondering if anyone has explored this similarity. I haven't been able to find mention of it.