To think there’s nothing wrong with a circular argument?

[SnugShaker]

People always dismiss circular arguments as if they’re inherently flawed but sometimes they make perfect sense. If something is true by its own definition or widely accepted as fact, isn’t that just reinforcing a logical truth rather than a flaw? Not all circular reasoning is meaningless - some of it is just common sense.

Surely it doesn’t achieve anything? Nothing is explained or expanded upon.

I don't think you understand what circular reasoning is, unless you can give an example of your premise.

Sometimes the point isn’t to expand but to confirm the premise as self-evident.

I think you've misunderstood what a circular argument is.

Like what? Finding it hard to understand without an example, but I’m curious about your point so would like to be able to.

"If something is true by its definition". What? You can't invent entities and then "prove" their existence with word-play. Well, you can, but it's entirely reasonable for someone else to point out that such a claim is deeply flawed.

Circular argument-

You can trust John because he is honest.
How do you know he's honest?
Because you can trust him.

What you seem to be talking about-

John is a bachelor because he is an unmarried man.

For example: “All bachelors are unmarried men.” It’s circular in that the definition repeats itself but it’s still true and valid because that’s exactly what a bachelor is.

Sometimes you need to develop the question better.
‘Why is water wet?’, may appear to allow a circular argument but it’s perhaps a poor question. ‘Why does water feel wet’ or ‘what happens when things get wet’ may be a better question if you want to understand what water and wetness are.

This is not a circular argument, it's just the definition of bachelor.

True but I’m talking about things that are already accepted definitions, not made-up entities.

A circular argument would be All bachelors are bachelors.

This is correct.
A circular argument isn't a definition of something or common sense

Is this about the definition of ‘woman’?

Your developers still have a lot of work to do.

I kind of hope so because at the moment it's just word salad and I have lost the will to live.

That's not a circular argument.

That's just stating a fact.

No, it’s not about that. It’s a broader point about how some self-evident truths get dismissed as “circular” when they’re really just definitions.

As PPs have said - that’s not a circular argument. It’s a definition.

"It’s a broader point about how some self-evident truths get dismissed as “circular” when they’re really just definitions"

WTF are you on about here?

I am interested in your question but you’d really have to give an example of a circular definition that you think merits not being dismissed or devalued over a true definition.

Well you haven't made that point yet, so get on with it or give over.

That's not an argument of any sort; that is a statement of fact. Like others, I don't think you understand what a circular argument is.

That isn't a circular argument.

That's just a definition.

Your argument falls down at your use of the word 'definition'. You can't use a circular argument to provide/prove a definition.