Several months ago, I came up with a way to prove that circular reasoning actually isn't a fallacy, but instead a good way of proving things. I know that sounds dumb, but after talking to my Calculus teacher, my logic-obsessed uncle, and a Philosophy professor, I don't think anyone's really disproved it. It's a little hard to explain, but here's the best I can do:
First, I want you to assume two things. All arguments start with some sort of assumption, but these are a little unusual.
Please assume that,
1. The argument I’m about to tell you is circular, and
2. Circular arguments are good.
From those two things, you can easily conclude that this argument, being circular, is good.
Now, in a circular argument the conclusion is the same as one of the assumptions. So, in order to reach the conclusion of our argument, we need to go back to the assumptions.
If we made assumption 1 into our conclusion, our argument wouldn’t even be an argument- it would just be us asserting over and over again that this argument is circular. So, in order to keep our argument as an argument, we must make assumption two into our conclusion.
So, here’s the grand conclusion:
Circular arguments are good.
Weird, right? What do you guys think? Does this explain it well enough? And what, if anything, should I do with this?
I have way, way more information on this, but I'm trying to keep it short. Please ask me questions and I'll try to answer them.