Poorly versed in philosophical ideas, but I'm trying to get a grasp on some concepts discussed in The Last Superstition (2010), a polemical book on religion/theism by Edward Feser that an acquaintance recommended; in particular, I'm struggling with the second chapter, which provides a brief overview of Aristotelian metaphysics.
My understanding is that a form is the nature of a thing, and is different from something's matter. Feser writes about how a blue rubber ball has the potential to be melted and molded into a door stop, for example, and the matter will persist through that change. However, the rubber will no longer have the ability to "roll" or "bounce".
Would this be an accurate description of how realists define what objects are? By what the matter has the potential to become/do? Would realists rely on spectroscopy, for instance, to define "blueness"? How would they say something is or is not "round" or "can roll on a flat surface" or "bounce"?
According to realists, are there infinite forms? My very crude understanding tells me this is the only way to reconcile this problem.