Plato's Theory of Forms: Function, Intent, and Parameters

Response to:  http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/2013/02/response-to-httpcorbinbrassardblogspotc.html?showComment=1359931317406#c1241568056337602977

I would be inclined to agree with the idea that size does not always matter when defining an object.  Of course, that is resting on a few premises about the process of defining an object.
An object is defined when:

-It's function or appearance (or both) coincides with the name given.
-It can be identified, just as a classmate, friend, or co-worker can be.  (Recognition upon sight)

I think it's important to remember that everything has an essence of it's true form.  In other words, an object like a trash can may have the essence of the form of a chair, as far as function goes, although not quite as much, as far as aesthetic appearance or intention is concerned.  Just because a trash can can serve as a chair does not mean that it is actually closer to the perfect form of a chair than say, a conventional chair.

I think the same holds true with a porcupine.  A porcupine who acts like friendly puppy is still a porcupine, just as a giant porcupine is still a porcupine.  They are both different, in regards to their function and parameters, yet they still both contain the essence of a porcupine.  We know this, because upon seeing either one, I would immediately recognize it as such.