 We know from Russell’s paradox that there is no set of all, and only, non-self-membered sets, which makes the first sentence  false.[13]  But this is not to deny of course that some sets are all and only non-self-membered sets, even if they fail to compose a set. Unfortunately, the argument depends on a certain interpretation of Russell’s paradox that is itself controversial and will fail to convince philosophers who think that the moral of Russell’s paradox is that no singular quantifier can range unrestrictedly over all the sets there are.