What is the good/ good of the FORM of the GOOD?

'Good' is nothing specific but is transcendentally or generally applied over specific, and specified, 'categories'. These 'categories' may be seen-at least for the purposes of this note-as under Platonic Forms. The rule that instances under a category or form need a Form to be under is valid. It may be tautological: but this is OK for rules. Not being specific, however, 'good' neither needs nor can have a specifying Form. So, on these grounds, the Form of the Good is otious. Any rule of the kind, 'Everything needs a Form, so good needs a Form of the Good' is mistaken, in that good is not a kind, but a transcendental. To give a Form to the transcendental 'good' is a mistake: it is a Rylian category mistake. And the Form of the Good either does no work, or works unprofitably in any but an aesthetic sense. © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009.