Circular sets still evince circular dependencies

Abstract In a recent paper in this journal, Maia offers an argument against the claim that the existence of circular sets in some non-well-founded set theories provides evidence that ontological dependence is neither irreflexive nor anti-symmetric. Maia’s argument is crucially based on the idea that there is an epistemic parity between two principles of set-dependence. In this paper, I show that Maia’s argument is flawed: the two principles of set-dependence that Maia proposes should not be treated on a par.