 How does ZA avoid Russell’s paradox? One might think at first that it doesn’t. After all, if we let \(A\) be \(V\) – the whole universe of sets – and \(\phi\) be \(x \not\in x\), a contradiction again appears to arise. But in this case, all the contradiction shows is that \(V\) is not a set. All the contradiction shows is that “\(V\)” is an empty name (i.e., that it has no reference, that \(V\) does not exist), since the ontology of Zermelo’s system consists solely of sets. 