 Whatever one thinks about regresses in general, the principles that generate this regress must be denied, for they lead to contradiction. The theory of Forms, as presented here at least, tells us (i) that when some things are a certain way, they participate in a single Form, in virtue of which they are that way; (ii) that Forms self-predicate—Forms themselves are the way that things that participate in them are; and (iii) that the Form is distinct from the things that participate in it. Each of these three claims is essential to generating the regress: without (i) we don’t get the existence of a Form in the first place, without (ii) we don’t get the second list of things with a shared feature, so would stop simply with the \(X\)s participating in some Form, and without (iii) we could conclude that just as the \(X\)s participate in \(F\)-ness, so do the \(X\)s and \(F\)-ness itself—there would be no need for a new Form. So (i)–(iii) generate a regress, and they are each needed to do so. But (i)–(iii) are inconsistent, and no regress argument is needed to show that. (i) and (ii) together entail that Forms participate in themselves. (ii) tells us that \(F\)-ness is \(F\), and (i) tells us that if this is so it is in virtue of \(F\)-ness participating in \(F\)-ness, since that is how in general things get to be \(F\). So \(F\)-ness participates in itself, and so by (iii) \(F\)-ness must be distinct from itself, since Forms are distinct from that which participates in them. But nothing is distinct from itself: contradiction.