…all of which quite different to ‘substance, a material with uniform properties’.

Where I am from, using wiki to debate philosophy would get you laughed out of the room.

Looks like Plato was making pronouncements on relations.

Concepts I'm familiar with that seem relevant:

1. Reflexivity. Equals: 2 = 2.

2. Symmetry. Sibiling of: If x is the sibling of y then y is the sibling of x.

3. Transitivity. Greater than (barring rock-paper-scissors sorta stuff): If x > y and y > z then x > z.

Where I am from, using wiki to debate philosophy would get you laughed out of the room. — Jackson

Translation of terms is not philosophy, it is a well documented matter of fact. There are, however, philosophical consequences.

Wayfarer asked:

Could you say that Aristotle's later theory of essence and substance is foreshadowed here? — Wayfarer

Aristotle did not use the terms 'essence' and 'substance'. In the long history since those terms were used to translate 'ousia' they have gained various meanings that should not be attributed to Aristotle.

You say:

The Latin is wrong. By "essence" Aristotle means "form" or "shape." (eidos or morphê) — Jackson

Aristotle did not use the term 'essence'. It is an English translation of the Latin 'essentia'. A term coined by Cicero to translate 'ousia'. Ousia, the term used by Aristotle, does not mean eidos or morphê. They are three different terms that have some overlap but have different meanings.

Aristotle did not use the term 'essence'. It is an English translation of the Latin 'essentia'. A term coined by Cicero to translate 'ousia'. Ousia, the term used by Aristotle, does not mean eidos or morphê. They are three different terms that have some overlap but have different meanings. — Fooloso4

No, in the Physics, formal cause is "eidos" or "morphe". You are wrong that it is ousia. Ousia just means being or a thing.

In the long history since those terms were used to translate 'ousia' they have gained various meanings that should not be attributed to Aristotle. — Fooloso4

I believe you are just wrong.

No, in the Physics, formal cause is "eidos" or "morphe". You are wrong that it is ousia. — Jackson

I did not claim that ousia is the formal cause.

Ousia just means being or a thing. — Jackson

Which is what I actually said, several times. Except that the question of being qua being is of primary concern in the Metaphysics.

In the long history since those terms were used to translate 'ousia' they have gained various meanings that should not be attributed to Aristotle.
— Fooloso4

I believe you are just wrong. — Jackson

Which part? That 'essentia' and 'essentia' are Latin terms used to translate 'ousia' or that these terms have accrued other meanings?

I must be missing the point. — Jackson

Indeed, that is still the case!

I did not claim that ousia is the formal cause. — Fooloso4

Misunderstanding. My mistake.

Indeed, that is still the case! — Fooloso4

I do not think we disagree on anything. My apology if there was offense based on my misunderstanding.

My apology if there was offense based on my misunderstanding. — Jackson

I appreciate it, but no apology necessary. Disagreement is standard practice in philosophy. I learned long ago that it is a mistake to take such things personally.

I appreciate it, but no apology necessary. Disagreement is standard practice in philosophy. I learned long ago that it is a mistake to take such things personally. — Fooloso4

Good. I actually appreciate your contribution to this forum