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.

I feel like if the OP could provide us with one they would have by now. I wait in hope

Not a joke but I guess that’s kind of proving my point!

Here's a circular argument:

1. We can trust what the Bible says because it's the word of God

2. We know the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible

Does that strike you as a reasonable and justifiable argument?

That’s a good example of circular reasoning that isn’t just a definition - it’s trying to prove a point using the conclusion as evidence. My OP was more about cases where people call something circular when it’s actually just stating a definition or self-evident truth.

No it wasn't. Come on, OP, just fess up. You're never going to get out of this hole by digging.

But that exact claim is seen as a statement of a self-evident truth by many.

But that’s where it gets tricky. Something can feel self-evident within a belief system but still be circular when presented as proof to those outside it. My OP was more about definitions or widely-agreed facts, not faith-based premises.

That might be so but it still would be a circular argument because 1 is true because of 2 and 2 is true because of 1

I 100% agree. Circular arguments are worthless. I was just trying to illustrate that when the OP claims that circular arguments can be ok if they're used for a self-evident truth that can fall apart because not everyone will agree that a given "self-evident" claim is necessarily true.

Who are these people? People dismissing a definition as a circular argument is not something I've ever come across. Truly.

I have to agree, I have never experienced someone giving a definition of something then another person dismissing it as a circular argument.

Most people have never heard of circular argument so if they heard one they would know it doesn’t really make sense but not know the term for it.
Those who think an actual definition is a circular argument is just up for a row.

Oh I see yes I understand what you’re saying

This is how people educate themselves into idiocy 😂

That is a definition, not a circular argument.

A circular argument would be:

Person A: "A bachelor is someone who feels like a bachelor"
Person B: "So what is a bachelor?"
Person A: "Someone who feelsl like a bachelor"

So you're agreeing with my post which was entirely contrary to what you wrote in your OP?

I don't think OP really knew what a "circular argument" was when they started this thread.

They do now!