Philosophy Now Forum

Paul Tissier argues that Russell’s Paradox isn’t really a paradox.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/149/Paradox_Lost

That's good, but it's also a little too free with the word "paradox".

A paradox is something akin to a surprising conclusion. Very surprising, in that it results in a denial of some precept that had been, until the surprise was first sprung, taken for granted. Naturally, that will encourage some "soul-searching" or rather "world-view reviewing" activity on the part of the surprised. And naturally, many such reviews will give rise to a rearrangement of the ideas surrounding the paradox, such that the paradox "disappears".

"There is no paradox", then, is just a form of words by which a thinker, who believes they have recovered a consistent world view from the confusion wrought by the paradox, may choose to announce their success.

But the fact remains that the paradox was a surprise when it was first uncovered. Russell's surprise at discovering Russell's paradox remains a significant historical fact.