The standard definition of a set is well-defined collection of objects. Here I assume that well-defined collection would mean any object is either a member of the collection or not.
But if we take the definition of set to be well-defined collection of "well-defined" objects then can we overcome the Russell's paradox ? I'm just asking this from a naive beginners perspective.
For the collection $A$ of objects which are not members of themselves is not even a "well-defined" object in the first place. Because if $A$ itself is in the collection then it is not and the vice versa. I'm aware that this collection is considered a proper class in modern set theory.