The paper opposes to a common attitude towards forms-as being something non-important, superficial, "formal"-Plato and Aristotle's philosophy, according to which things exist because of forms. From the inquiry of their logic that mixes the epistemological and the ontological standpoint, the analysis goes on to the problem of the understanding of forms as events: as mirrors of the manner we see the world/as mirrors of the way of thinking. I contrast the event to the situation-in Alain Badiou's

more »

... nner-and I show that there is a logic of continuity between Aristotle's insistence on the concrete face of form (σύνoλoν) and Badiou's concept of fidelity: because this concept always relates to the concrete which deserves to be faithful towards. The value of things we support gives their "forms". If so, fidelity towards forms is something more complete and suggestive than to follow essences: forms are as important as essences; this is obvious when the forms change but the essence do not; in fact, it is not a real change. The real change is when the form changes bringing also the change of the essence.