[FOM] Remark on Paradoxes

[Michael Kremer]

Harvey Friedman provides a three point analysis of the origin of Paradox, 
and claims that Russell's paradox is a case in point.  According to the 
proposed analysis, there must be "some fundamental principles surrounding 
certain concepts that are seen to be essential, and people use them to good 
effect" and "there are some obvious extensions of these principles" which 
turn out to be inconsistent.

I would appreciate some enlightenment as to what is intended with regard to 
Russell's paradox.  What are the "obvious principles," what are the 
"certain concepts" they "surround" and are "essential" to, and what are the 
"obvious extensions" of those principles which lead to inconsistency?  I 
have my guesses, but I am not sure.  in particular I am not sure where the 
"obvious principles" I am guessing at are "used to good effect."

--Michael Kremer