Ackermann, W. 1956, Zur Axiomatik der Mengenlehre, Mathematische Annalen 131, 336–345.Google Scholar

Aczel, P. 1980, Frege structures and the notions of proposition, truth and set, in Barwise, J., Keisler, J. and Kunen, K. (eds), The Kleene Symposium, Vol. 101 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Elsevier, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 31–59.Google Scholar

Aczel, P. 1988, Non-Well-Founded Sets, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar

Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. 1975, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Antonelli, A. 1999, Conceptions and paradoxes of sets, Philosophia Mathematica 7, 136–163.Google Scholar

Awodey, S. 2004, An answer to Hellman’s question: “Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism?”, Philosophia Mathematica 12, 54–64.Google Scholar

Bacon, A. 2013, Non-classical metatheory for non-classical logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic 42, 335–355.Google Scholar

Baltag, A. 1999, STS: A structural theory of sets, Logic Journal of the IGPL 7, 481–515.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. 1986, Situations, sets, and the axiom of foundation, in Paris, J., Wilkie, A. and Wilmers, G. (eds), Logic Colloquium’84, North-Holland, New York, pp. 21–36.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J. 1987, The Liar: An Essay on Truth and Circularity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Moss, L. 1991, Hypersets, Mathematical Intelligencer 13, 31–41.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Moss, L. 1996, Vicious Circles, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar

Baxter, D. L. M. 1988, Identity in the loose and popular sense, Mind 97, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beall, JC 2009, Spandrels of Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beall, JC, Brady, R. T., Hazen, A. P., Priest, G. and Restall, G. 2006, Relevant restricted quantification, Journal of Philosophical Logic 35, 587–598.Google Scholar

Bealer, G. 1982, Quality and Concept, Clarendon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. 1983, Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Bernays, P. 1935, Sur le platonisme dans les mathématiques, L’enseignement mathématique 34, 52–69. English translation in Benacerraf and Putnam 1983: 258–271.Google Scholar

Bernays, P. 1961, Zur Frage der Unendlichkeitsschemata in der axiomatische Mengenlehre, in Bar-Hillel, Y., Poznanski, E. I. J., Robin, M. O. and Robinson, A. (eds), Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, pp. 3–49. An English translation with a new appendix by the author appears as Bernays 1976.Google Scholar

Bernays, P. 1971, Zum Symposium über die Grundlagen der Mathematik, Dialectica 25, 171–195. Translation by Stewe Awodey available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/db74/2e06bd1951948014f8e7a9f1b9b36322ee6d.pdf.Google Scholar

Bernays, P. 1976, On the problem of schemata of infinity in axiomatic set theory, in Müller, G. (ed.), Sets and Classes: On the Work by Paul Bernays, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 121–172.Google Scholar

Boffa, M. 1969, Sur la théorie des ensembles sans axiome de Fondement, Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de Belgique 31, 16–56.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. 1971, The iterative conception of set, Journal of Philosophy 68, 215–231. Reprinted in Boolos 1998: 13–29.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. 1985, Nominalist platonism, Philosophical Review 94, 327–344. Reprinted in Boolos 1998: 73–87.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. 1989, Iteration again, Philosophical Topics 17, 5–21. Reprinted in Boolos 1998: 88–104.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. 1993, Whence the contradiction?, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 67, 213–233.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. 1998, Logic, Logic, and Logic, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. 2000, Must we believe in set theory?, in Sher, G. and Tieszen, R. (eds), Between Logic and Intuition: Essays in Honor of Charles Parsons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 257–268. Reprinted in Boolos 1998: 120–132.Google Scholar

Booth, D. and Ziegler, R. 1996, Finsler Set Theory: Platonism and Circularity, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel. Translation of Paul Finsler’s papers with introductory comments.Google Scholar

Brady, R. T. 1984, Depth relevance of some paraconsistent logics, Studia Logica 43, 63–73.Google Scholar

Brady, R. T. 1989, The non-triviality of dialectical set theory, in Priest, G., Routley, R. and Norman, J. (eds), Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent, Philosophia Verlag, Munich, pp. 437–470.Google Scholar

Brady, R. T. 2003, Recent developments II, in Brady, R. (ed.), Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Vol. II, Ashgate, London, pp. 231–308.Google Scholar

Brady, R. T. 2006, Universal Logic, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar

Brady, R. T. 2014, The simple consistency of naive set theory using metavaluations, Journal of Philosophical Logic 43, 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, J. 2004, E Pluribus Unum: Plural logic and set theory, Philosophia Mathematica 3, 193–221.Google Scholar

Burgess, J. 2005, Fixing Frege, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Cameron, R. 2008, Turtles all the way down: Regress, priority and fundamentality, Philosophical Quarterly 58, 1–14.Google Scholar

Cantor, G. 1883, Über unendliche, lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten, Mathematische Annalen 21, 545–586. Reprinted in Cantor 1932: 165–209.Google Scholar

Cantor, G. 1887–88, Mitteilungen zur Lehre vom Transfiniten, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 91 /92, 81–125 and 240–265. Reprinted in Cantor 1932: 378–439.Google Scholar

Cantor, G. 1895, Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre, Mathematische Annalen 46, 481–512. Reprinted in Cantor 1932: 282–311.Google Scholar

Cantor, G. 1899, Cantor an Dedekind, in Cantor 1932: 443–447. Translated in van Heijenoort 1967: 113–117.Google Scholar

Cantor, G. 1932, Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts, Springer, Berlin. Edited by Ernst Zermelo.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. 2018, Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. and Turner, R. 1988, Semantics and property theory, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261–302.Google Scholar

Church, A. 1974, Set theory with a universal set, in Henkin, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium, Vol. 25 of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp. 297–308.Google Scholar

Clark, P. 1993, Sets and indefinitely extensible concepts and classes, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 67, 235–249.Google Scholar

Cleland, C. 1991, On the individuation of events, Synthese 86, 229–254.Google Scholar

Cocchiarella, N. B. 1985, Frege’s double correlation thesis and Quine’s set theories NF and ML, Journal of Philosophical Logic 14, 1–39.Google Scholar

Cocchiarella, N. B. 1992, Conceptual realism versus Quine on classes and higher-order logic, Synthese 90, 379–436.Google Scholar

Coret, J. 1964, Formules stratifiées et axiome de fondation, Comptes Rendus hebdo-madaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris série A 264, 809–812 and 837–839.Google Scholar

Cotnoir, A. 2010, Anti-symmetry and non-extensional mereology, Philosophical Quarterly 60, 396–405.Google Scholar

Cotnoir, A. J. and Baxter, D. L. M. (eds): 2014, Composition as Identity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crabbé, M. 1992, On NFU, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33, 112–119.Google Scholar

Crabbé, M. 2001, Reassurance for the logic of paradox, Review of Symbolic Logic 4, 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curry, H. 1942, The inconsistency of certain formal logics, Journal of Symbolic Logic 7, 115–117.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 1969, The individuation of events, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 216–234. Reprinted in Davidson 2001: 123–129.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 2001, Essays on Action and Events, 2nd edn, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Decock, L. 2002, Trading Ontology for Ideology: The Interplay of Logic, Set Theory and Semantics in Quine’s Philosophy, Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Devlin, K. 1993, The Joy of Sets: Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory, 2nd edn, Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. 1963, The philosophical significance of Gödel’s theorem, Ratio 5, 140–155. Reprinted in Dummett 1978: 186–201.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. 1978, Truth and Other Enigmas, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. 1981, Frege: Philosophy of Language, 2nd edn, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. 1991, Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. 1993, What is mathematics about?, in Dummett, M., The Seas of Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 429–445.Google Scholar

Ernst, M. 2017, Category theory and foundations, in Landry, E. (ed.), Categories for the Working Philosopher, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar

Feferman, S. 1977, Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory, in Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J. (eds), Logic, Foundations of Mathematics and Computability Theory, Vol. 1, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 149–165.Google Scholar

Feferman, S. 2004, Typical ambiguity: Trying to have your cake and eat it too, in Link, G. (ed.), One Hundred Years of Russell’s Paradox, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar

Feferman, S. 2012, Foundations of unlimited category theory: What remains to be done, Review of Symbolic Logic 6, 6–15.Google Scholar

Field, H. 1980, Science without Numbers, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Field, H. 2008, Saving Truth from Paradox, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Field, H. Lederman, H. and Øgaard, T. F. 2017, Prospects for a naive theory of classes, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 58, 461–506.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 1994, Essence and modality, in Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language, Ridgeview, Atascadero, CA, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 1995, Ontological dependence, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95, 269–290.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 2005, Class and membership, Journal of Philosophy 102, 547–572.Google Scholar

Finsler, P. 1926, Über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre, I, Mathematische Zeitschrift 25, 683–713. Reprinted and translated in Booth and Ziegler 1996: 103–132.Google Scholar

Florio, S. 2014, Unrestricted quantification, Philosophy Compass 9, 441–454.Google Scholar

Florio, S. and Leach-Krouse, G. 2017, What Russell should have said to Burali-Forti, Review of Symbolic Logic 10, 682–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forster, T. 1995, Set Theory with a Universal Set, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Forster, T. 2003, ZF + every set is the same size as a wellfounded set, Journal of Symbolic Logic 68, 1–4.Google Scholar

Forster, T. 2008, The iterative conception of set, The Review of Symbolic Logic 1, 97–110.Google Scholar

Forti, M. and Honsell, F. 1983, Set theory with free construction principles, Annali Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Scienze 10, 493–522.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, A., Bar-Hillel, Y. and Lévi, A. 1973, Foundations of Set Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 1884, Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, Wilhelm Koebner, Breslau. Translated as Frege 1953.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 1892, On concept and object, Vierteljahrsschrift für wisseschaftliche Philosophie 16, 192–205. Translated in Geach and Black 1952: 42–55.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 1893/1190, Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol. I and II, Verlag Hermann Pohle, Jena. Translated in Frege 2013.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 1953, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 2nd edn, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 1979, Posthumous Writings, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. Edited by Hans Hermes, Friedrich Kambartel and Friedrich Kaulbach. Translated by Peter Long and Roger White.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 2013, Basic Laws of Arithmetic: Derived using Concept-Script, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Translated by P. Ebert and M. Rossberg (with C. Wright).Google Scholar

Friedman, H. 1971, Higher set theory and mathematical practice, Annals of Mathematical Logic 2, 325–357.Google Scholar

Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds): 1952, Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Basic Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Gloede, K. 1976, Reflection principles and indescribability, in Müller, G. (ed.), Sets and Classes: On the Work by Paul Bernays, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 277–323.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. *1933, The present situation in the foundations of mathematics, in Gödel 1990: 45–53.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. 1944, Russell’s mathematical logic, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Northwestern University, Evanston and Chicago, pp. 123–153. Reprinted in Gödel 1990: 119–141.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. 1947, What is Cantor’s continuum problem?, American Mathematical Monthly 54, 515–525. Reprinted in Gödel 1990: 176–187.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. *1951, Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and their implications, in Gödel 1995: 304–323.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. 1958, Über eine bisher noch nicht benütze Erweitrung des finiten Standpunktes, Dialectica 12, 280–287. Reprinted and translated in Gödel 1990: 240–251.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. 1964, What is Cantor’s continuum problem?, in Benacerraf and Putnam 1983: 470–485. Revised and expanded version of Gödel 1947. Reprinted in Gödel 1990: 254–270.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. 1972, On an extension of finitary mathematics which has not yet been used, to have appeared in Dialectica. First published in Gödel 1990: 271–280. Revised and expanded English translation of Gödel 1958.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. 1990, Collected Works II, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. 1995, Collected Works III, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Grattan-Guiness, I. 1971, The correspondence between Georg Cantor and Philip Jourdain, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 73, 111–130.Google Scholar

Grišin, V. N. 1974, A nonstandard logic and its application to set theory, Studies in Formalized Languages and Nonclassical Logics, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 135–171. In Russian.Google Scholar

Hailperin, T. 1944, A set of axioms for logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 9, 1–19.Google Scholar

Hale, B. and Wright, C. 2001, The Reason’s Proper Study: Essays towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hallett, M. 1984, Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hamacher-Hermes, A. 1994, Inhalts- oder UmfgangsLogik? , Alber, Freiburg.Google Scholar

Haslanger, S. 2000, Gender and race: What are they? What do we want them to be?, Noûs 34, 31–55.Google Scholar

Haslanger, S. 2012, Resisting Reality: Social Construction and Social Critique, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hazen, A. 1993, Review of Pollard 1990, Philosophia Mathematica 1, 173–179.Google Scholar

Henson, C. W. 1973, Type-raising operations on cardinal and ordinal numbers in Quine’s ‘New Foundations’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 38, 59–68.Google Scholar

Holmes, R. 1998, Elementary Set Theory with a Universal Set, Vol. 10 of Cahiers du Centre de Logique, Bruylant-Academia, Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar

Holmes, R. 2001, Strong axioms of infinity in NFU, Journal of Symbolic Logic 66, 87–116.Google Scholar

Holmes, R. 2009, Alternative axiomatic set theories, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/settheory-alternative/.Google Scholar

Horsten, L. 2010, Impredicative identity criteria, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80, 411–439.Google Scholar

Horwich, P. 1990, Truth, Basil Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Horwich, P. 1998, Truth, 2nd edn, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hossack, K. 2014, Sets and plural comprehension, Journal of Philosophical Logic 43, 517–539.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L. 2008, On adopting Kripke semantics in set theory, Review of Symbolic Logic 1, 81–96.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L. 2010, Set Theory: Its Justification, Logic and Extent, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L. 2012, How to be a minimalist about sets, Philosophical Studies 159, 69–87.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L. 2014, The graph conception of set, Journal of Philosophical Logic 43, 181–208.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L. 2016, Can the cumulative hierarchy be categorically characterized?, Logique et Analyse 59, 367–387.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L. 2017, Maximality principles in set theory, Philosophia Mathematica 25, 159–193.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L. and Murzi, J. 2017, Maximally consistent sets of instances of Naive Comprehension, Mind 126, 371–384.Google Scholar

Jané, I. 1995, The role of the absolute infinite in Cantor’s conception of set, Erkenntnis 42, 375–402.Google Scholar

Jané, I. and Uzquiano, G. 2004, Well- and non-well-founded Fregean extensions, Journal of Philosophical Logic 33, 437–465.Google Scholar

Jech, T. 2003, Set Theory: The Third Millenium Edition, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Jensen, R. 1969, On the consistency of a slight(?) modification of Quine’s New Foundations, Synthese 19, 250–263.Google Scholar

Johnstone, P., Power, J., Tsujishita, T., Watanabe, H. and Worrell, J. 2001, On the structure of categories of coalgebras, Theoretical Computer Science 260, 87–117.Google Scholar

Kanamori, A. 2003, The Higher Infinite, 2nd edn, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Kim, J. 1973, Causation, nomic subsumption, and the concept of event, Journal of Philosophy 70, 217–236.Google Scholar

Kleene, S. C. 1952, Introduction to Metamathematics, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Koellner, P. 2003, The Search for New Axioms, PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Koellner, P. 2009, On reflection principles, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 157, 206–219.Google Scholar

Kreisel, G. 1967, Informal rigour and completeness proofs, in Lakatos, I. (ed.), Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 138–171.Google Scholar

Kreisel, G. 1980, Kurt Gödel, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society of London 26, 149–224.Google Scholar

Kundera, M. 1984, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar

Ladyman, J. and Presnell, S. 2018, Does homotopy type theory provide a foundation for mathematics?, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69, 377–420.Google Scholar

Lavine, S. 1994, Understanding the Infinite, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Lear, J. 1977, Sets and semantics, Journal of Philosophy 74, 86–102.Google Scholar

Leitgeb, H. 2007, On the metatheory of Field’s ‘Solving the paradoxes, escaping revenge’, in Beall, JC (ed.), Revenge of the Liar, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 159–183.Google Scholar

Leng, M. 2007, What’s there to know?, in Leng, M., Paseau, A. and Potter, M. (eds), Mathematical Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 84–108.Google Scholar

Leśniewski, S. 1916, Podstawy ogólnej teoryi mnogości. I, Prace Polskiego Kola Naukowego w Moskwie, Moscow. Translation in Leśniewski 1992: 129–173.Google Scholar

Leśniewski, S. 1992, Foundations of the General Theory of Sets. I, Vol. 1, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Lévy, A. 1960, Axiom schemata of strong infinity in axiomatic set theory, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 10, 223–238.Google Scholar

Lévy, A. and Vaught, R. 1961, Principles of partial reflection in the set theories of Zermelo and Ackermann, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 11, 1045–1062.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1983, New work for a theory of universals, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61, 343–377.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1991, Parts of Classes, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. 2008, Structuralism and the notion of dependence, Philosophical Quarterly 58, 59–79.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. 2010, Pluralities and sets, Journal of Philosophy 107, 144–164.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. 2018, Dummett on indefinite extensibility, Philosophical Issues 28, 196–220.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. and Pettigrew, R. 2011, Category theory as an autonomous foundation, Philosophia Mathematica 19, 227–254.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. and Rayo, A. 2012, Hierarchies ontological and ideological, Mind 121, 269–308.Google Scholar

Lipton, P. 2003, Inference to the Best Explanation, Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 1989, What is a criterion of identity?, Philosophical Quarterly 39, 1–21.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 1991, One-level versus two-level identity criteria, Analysis 51, 192–194.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2003, Individuation, in Loux, M. and Zimmerman, D. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 75–95.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2005, Ontological dependence, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/dependence-ontological/.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2007, Sortals and the individuation of objects, Mind and Language 22, 514–533.Google Scholar

MacLane, S. 1986, Mathematics, Form and Function, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 1983, Proper classes, Journal of Symbolic Logic 48, 113–139.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 1988, Believing the axioms. I, Journal of Symbolic Logic 53, 481–511.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 1990, Realism in Mathematics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 1996, Set theoretic naturalism, Journal of Symbolic Logic 61, 490–514.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 1997, Naturalism in Mathematics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 2007, Second Philosophy: A Naturalistic Method, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 2011, Defending the Axioms: On the Philosophical Foundations of Set Theory, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Martin, D. 1970, Review of Set Theory and Its Logic by Willard Van Orman Quine, Journal of Philosophy 67, 111–114.Google Scholar

Martin, D. A. 1975, Borel determinacy, Annals of Mathematics 102, 363–371.Google Scholar

Martin, D. A. 1998, Mathematical evidence, in Dales, H. G. and Oliveri, G. (eds), Truth in Mathematics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 215–230.Google Scholar

Martin, D. A. 2001, Multiple universes of sets and indeterminate truth-values, Topoi 20, 5–16.Google Scholar

Martin, D. A. and Steel, J. R. 1989, A proof of projective determinacy, Journal of the American Mathematical Society 2, 71–125.Google Scholar

Mathias, A. 2001, Slim models of Zermelo set theory, Journal of Symbolic Logic 66, 487–496.Google Scholar

McGee, V. 1992, Two problems with Tarski’s theory of consequence, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92, 273–292.Google Scholar

McGee, V. 1997, How we learn mathematical language, Philosophical Review 106, 35–68.Google Scholar

McLarty, C. 1992, Failure of cartesian closedness in NF, Journal of Symbolic Logic 57, 555–556.Google Scholar

McLarty, C. 1993, Anti-foundation and self-reference, Journal of Philosophical Logic 22, 19–28.Google Scholar

Meadows, T. 2015, Unpicking Priest’s bootstraps, Thought 4, 181–188.Google Scholar

Menzel, C. 2014, Wide sets, ZFCU, and the iterative conception, Journal of Philosophy 111, 57–83.Google Scholar

Meschkowski, H. 1967, Probleme des Unendlichen: Werk und Leben Georg Cantors, Vieweg, Braunschweig.Google Scholar

Meyer, R., Routley, R. and Dunn, J. M. 1979, Curry’s Paradox, Analysis 39, 124–128.Google Scholar

Mirimanoff, D. 1917, Remarque sur la théorie des ensembles et les antinomies Cantorienne. I, L’Enseignment Mathématique 19, 37–52.Google Scholar

Mitchell, E. 1976, A Model of Set Theory with a Universal Set, PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin at Madison.Google Scholar

Montague, R. 1957, Contributions to the Axiomatic Foundation of Set Theory, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Montague, R. 1961, Fraenkel’s addition to the axioms of Zermelo, in Bar-Hillel, Y., Poznanski, E. I. J., Rabin, M. O. and Robinson, A. (eds), Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, pp. 91–114.Google Scholar

Morris, S. 2017, The significance of Quine’s New Foundations for the philosophy of set theory, The Monist 100, 167–179.Google Scholar

Moschovakis, Y. N. 2006, Notes on Set Theory, 2nd edn, Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Moss, L. 2009, Non-wellfounded set theory, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/nonwellfounded-set-theory/.Google Scholar

Myhill, J. 1984, Paradoxes, Synthese 60, 129–143.Google Scholar

Oliver, A. 2000, Logic, mathematics and philosophy: Review of Boolos 1998, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51, 857–873.Google Scholar

Oliver, A. and Smiley, T. 2006, What are sets and what are they for?, Philosophical Perspectives 20, 123–155.Google Scholar

Oliver, A. and Smiley, T. 2012, Plural Logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Orey, S. 1964, New Foundations and the Axiom of Counting, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31, 655–660.Google Scholar

Parikh, R. 1971, Existence and feasibility in arithmetic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 36, 494–508.Google Scholar

Parsons, C. 1974, Sets and classes, Noûs 8, 1–12.Google Scholar

Parsons, C. 1977, What is the iterative conception of set?, in Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J. (eds), Logic, Foundations of Mathematics, and Computability Theory. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science (London, Ontario, 1975), Reidel, Dordrecht. Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam 1983: 503–529.Google Scholar

Parsons, C. 2008, Mathematical Thought and Its Objects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Parsons, C. 2014, Analyticity for realists, in Kennedy, J. (ed.), Interpreting Gödel, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 131–150.Google Scholar

Paseau, A. 2007, Boolos on the justification of set theory, Philosophia Mathematica 15, 30–53.Google Scholar

Pollard, S. 1988, Plural quantification and the axiom of choice, Philosophical Studies 54, 393–397.Google Scholar

Pollard, S. 1990, Philosophical Introduction to Set Theory, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar

Pollard, S. 1992, Choice again, Philosophical Studies 66, 285–296.Google Scholar

Potter, M. 2004, Set Theory and Its Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Potter, M. 2009, Abstractionist class theory: is there any such thing?, in Lear, J. and Oliver, A. (eds), The Force of Argument: Essays in Honor of Timothy Smiley, Routledge, London, pp. 186–204.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 1979, The logic of paradox, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 219–241.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2001, Minimally inconsistent LP, Studia Logica 50, 321–331.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2002, Beyond the Limits of Thought, 2nd, extended edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2006a, Doubt Truth to Be a Liar, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2006b, In Contradiction, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2017, What If ? the exploration of an idea, Australasian Journal of Logic 14, 54–127.Google Scholar

Priest, G. and Routley, R. 1989, Applications of paraconsistent logic, in Priest, G., Routley, R. and Norman, J. (eds), Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent, Philosophia Verlag, Hamden, pp. 369–373.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1937, New foundations for mathematical logic, American Mathematical Monthly 44, 70–80.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1938a, On Cantor’s Theorem, Journal of Symbolic Logic 2, 120–124.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1938b, On the theory of types, Journal of Symbolic Logic 3, 125–139.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1940, Mathematical Logic, Norton, New York.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1941, Whitehead and the rise of modern logic, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, Northwestern University, Evanston and Chicago, pp. 127–163. Reprinted in Quine 1995: 3–36.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1951a, Mathematical Logic, revised edition of Quine 1940 edn, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1951b, Two dogmas of empiricism, Philosophical Review 60, 20–43.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1956, Unification of universes in set theory, Journal of Symbolic Logic 21, 267–279.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1963, Set Theory and Its Logic, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1970, Reply to D. A. Martin, Journal of Philosophy 67, 247–248.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1987a, The inception of New Foundations. In Quine 1995: 286–289.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1987b, Quiddities: An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1995, Selected Logic Papers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Ramsey, F. P. 1925, The foundations of mathematics, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 25, 338–384. Reprinted in Ramsey 1990: 164–224.Google Scholar

Ramsey, F. P. 1990, Philosophical Papers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Edited by D. H. Mellor.Google Scholar

Rawls, J. 1971, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Rayo, A. and Uzquiano, G. 1999, Toward a theory of second-order consequence, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40, 315–325.Google Scholar

Rayo, A. and Williamson, T. 2003, A completeness theorem for unrestricted first-order languages, in Beall, JC (ed.), Liar and Heaps, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 331–356.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, W. N. 1974, Remarks on reflection principles, large cardinals, and elementary embeddings, in Jech, T. J. (ed.), Axiomatic Set Theory II: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 13, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp. 189–205.Google Scholar

Restall, G. 1992, A note on naive set theory in LP, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33, 422–432.Google Scholar

Rieger, A. 2000, An argument for Finsler-Aczel set theory, Mind 109, 241–253.Google Scholar

Ripley, D. 2015, Naive set theory and nontransitive logic, Review of Symbolic Logic pp. 553–571.Google Scholar

Rosser, J. B. 1942, The Burali-Forti Paradox, Journal of Symbolic Logic 7, 1–17.Google Scholar

Rosser, J. B. 1953, Logic for Mathematicians, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar

Rosser, J. B. and Wang, H. 1950, Non-standard models for formal logics, Journal of Symbolic Logic 15, 113–129.Google Scholar

Routley, R. 1980, Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and Beyond: An Investigation of Noneism and the Theory of Items, Philosophy Department, RSSS, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar

Ruffino, M. 2003, Why Frege would not be a neo-Fregean, Mind 112, 51–78.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1902, Letter to Frege. In van Heijenoort 1967: 124–125.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1903, Principles of Mathematics, Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1906, On some difficulties in the theory of transfinite numbers and order types, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 4, 29–53.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1959, My Philosophical Development, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Rutten, J. 2000, Universal coalgebra: A theory of systems, Theoretical Computer Science 249, 3–80.Google Scholar

Schaffer, J. 2009, On what grounds what, in Chalmers, D., Manley, D. and Wasserman, R. (eds), Metametaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 347–383.Google Scholar

Scharp, K. 2013, Replacing Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Schindler, T. 2019, Classes, why and how, Philosophical Studies 176, 407–435.Google Scholar

Scott, D. 1955, Definitions by abstraction in axiomatic set theory, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 61, 442.Google Scholar

Scott, D. 1960, A different kind of model for set theory. Unpublished paper given at the Stanford Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar

Scott, D. 1961, Measurable cardinals and constructible sets, Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences 9, 521–524.Google Scholar

Scott, D. 1974, Axiomatizing set theory, in Jech, T. J. (ed.), Axiomatic Set Theory II. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 13, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp. 207–214.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 1991, Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 1997, Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2000, Thinking about Mathematics, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2003, Prolegomenon to any future neo-logicist set theory: Abstraction and indefinite extensibility, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54, 59–91.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2004, Foundations of mathematics: Metaphysics, epistemology, structure, Philosophical Quarterly 54, 16–37.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2006a, Computability, proof, and open-texture, in Olszweski, A., Woleński, J. and Janusz, R. (eds), Church’s Thesis After 70 Years, Ontos-Verlag, Heusenstamm, pp. 420–451.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2006b, Structure and identity, in MacBride, F. (ed.), Identity and Modality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 109–145.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2008, Identity, indiscernibility, and ante rem structuralism: The tale of i and − i, Philosophia Mathematica 16, 1–26.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. and Weir, A. 1999, New V, ZF and abstraction, Philosophia Mathematica 7, 293–321.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. and Wright, C. 2006, All things indefinitely extensible, in Rayo, A. and Uzquiano, G. (eds), Absolute Generality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 255–304.Google Scholar

Shoenfield, J. R. 1965, Mathematical Logic, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar

Shoenfield, J. R. 1977, Axioms of set theory, in Barwise, J. (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 321–344.Google Scholar

Sider, T. 2007, Parthood, Philosophical Review 116, 51–91.Google Scholar

Simons, P. 1991, Part/whole ii: Mereology since 1900, in Burkhardt, H. and Smith, B. (eds), Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, Philosophia, Munich, pp. 209–210.Google Scholar

Simpson, S. G. 1999, Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar

Soames, S. 1999, Understanding Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Specker, E. P. 1953a, The Axiom of Choice in Quine’s New Foundations for Mathematical Logic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 39, 972–975.Google Scholar

Specker, E. P. 1953b, Dualtität, Dialectica 12, 451–465.Google Scholar

Specker, E. P. 1962, Typical ambiguity, in Nagel, E. (ed.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 116–123.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. 1979, Individuals, University Paperbacks, London.Google Scholar

Sullivan, P. 2007, How did Frege fall into the contradiction?, Ratio 20, 91–107.Google Scholar

Tait, W. W. 1998, Zermelo’s conception of set theory and reflection principles, in Schirn, M. (ed.), The Philosophy of Mathematics Today, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 469–483.Google Scholar

Tait, W. W. 2001, Gödel’s unpublished papers in the foundations of mathematics, Philosophia Mathematica 9, 87–126.Google Scholar

Tarski, A. 1955, The notion of rank in axiomatic set theory and some of its applications, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 61, 443.Google Scholar

Thomas, M. 2014, Expressive limitations of naïve set theory in LP and minimally inconsistent LP, Review of Symbolic Logic 7, 341–350.Google Scholar

Thomas, M. 2018, Approximating cartesian closed categories in NF-style set theories, Journal of Philosophical Logic 47, 143–160.Google Scholar

Trueman, R. 2015, The concept horse with no name, Philosophical Studies 172, 1889–1906.Google Scholar

Turi, D. and Rutten, J. 1998, On the foundations of final coalgebra semantics: non-wellfounded sets, partial orders, metric spaces, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 8, 481–540.Google Scholar

Turing, A. 1936, On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheindungsprob-lem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 42, 230–265.Google Scholar

Tutte, W. T. 2001, Graph Theory, paperback edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Urquhart, A. 1988, Russell’s zigzag path to the ramified theory of types, Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies 8, 82–91.Google Scholar

Uzquiano, G. 1999, Models of second-order Zermelo set theory, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5, 289–302.Google Scholar

Uzquiano, G. 2015a, Modality and paradox, Philosophy Compass 10, 284–300.Google Scholar

Uzquiano, G. 2015b, A neglected resolution of Russell’s paradox of propositions, Review of Symbolic Logic 8, 328–344.Google Scholar

van den Berg, B. and De Marchi, F. 2007, Non-well-founded trees in categories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 146, 40–59.Google Scholar

van Heijenoort, J. 1967, From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

van Inwagen, P. 1990, Material Beings, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Varzi, A. 2008, The extensionality of parthood and composition, Philosophical Quarterly 58, 108–133.Google Scholar

von Neumann, J. 1923, Letter to Ernst Zermelo, 15 August 1923. In Meschkowski 1967: 271–273.Google Scholar

von Neumann, J. 1925, Eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 154, 219–240. English translation in van Heijenoort 1967: 393–413.Google Scholar

Waismann, F. 1945, Verifiability, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 19, 119–150.Google Scholar

Wang, H. 1950, A formal system of logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 15, 25–32.Google Scholar

Wang, H. 1974, From Mathematics to Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar

Wang, H. 1977, Large sets, in Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J. (eds), Logic, Foundations of Mathematics, and Computability Theory: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science (London, Ontario, 1975), Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 309–334.Google Scholar

Wang, H. 1996, A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Weber, Z. 2010a, Extensionality and restriction in naive set theory, Studia Logica 94, 87–104.Google Scholar

Weber, Z. 2010b, Transfinite numbers in paraconsistent set theory, Review of Symbolic Logic 3, 71–92.Google Scholar

Weber, Z. 2012, Transfinite cardinals in paraconsistent set theory, Review of Symbolic Logic 5, 269–292.Google Scholar

Weber, Z. 2013, Notes on inconsistent set theory, in Tanaka, K., Berto, F., Mares, E. and Paoli, F. (eds), Paraconsistency: Logic and Applications, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 315–328.Google Scholar

Weir, A. 1998a, Naïve set theory is innocent!, Mind 107, 763–798.Google Scholar

Weir, A. 1998b,Naïve set theory, paraconsistency and indeterminacy: part I, Logique et Analyse161–163,219–266.Google Scholar

Weir, A. 1999, Naïve set theory, paraconsistency and indeterminacy: part II, Logique et Analyse 167–168, 283–340.Google Scholar

Weir, A. 2004, There are no true contradictions, in Priest, G., Beall, JC and Armour-Garb, B. (eds), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 385–417.Google Scholar

Welch, P. 2014, Global reflection principles, in Leitgeb, H., Niiniluoto, I., Seppälä, P. and Sober, E. (eds), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress, College Publications, London, pp. 82–100.Google Scholar

Welch, P. and Horsten, L. 2016, Reflecting on absolute infinity, Journal of Philosophy 113, 89–111.Google Scholar

Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, B. 1910, 1912, 1913, Principa Mathematica, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 3 volumes.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. 1990, Identity and Discrimination, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. 1991, Fregean directions, Analysis 51, 194–195.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. 1994, Never say never, Topoi 13, 135–145.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. 2007, The Philosophy of Philosophy, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Woods, J. 2003, Paradox and Paraconsistency: Conflict Resolution in the Abstract Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Wright, C. 1983, Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects, Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen.Google Scholar

Zermelo, E. 1904, Beweis daß jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann, Mathematische Annalen 59, 514–516.Google Scholar

Zermelo, E. 1908, Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I, Mathematische Annalen 65, 261–281. Reprinted with translation in Zermelo 2010: 188–229.Google Scholar

Zermelo, E. 1930, Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: Neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre, Fundamenta Mathematicae 16, 29–47. Reprinted and translated in Zermelo 2010: 400–431.Google Scholar

Zermelo, E. 2010, Collected Works, Vol. I, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Edited by Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus, Craig G. Fraser and Akihiro Kanamori.Google Scholar