Stuck in Reverse: Why Your Arguments Might Be Going Nowhere
Learn how to identify self-referential arguments and break free from the "Because I Said So" trap.
Language is the architecture of our reality, but sometimes that architecture is built on a foundation that rests entirely upon itself. Among the various quirks of human logic, few are as frustratingly resilient as Circular Reasoning.
In plain language, circular reasoning—formally known as petitio principii or "begging the question"—is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is hidden within its own premise. If you say, "I am a trustworthy person because I would never lie to you," you haven’t actually proven your honesty; you’ve simply restated your claim in a different way. The primary rhetorical function of this technique is to create an illusion of certainty. It bypasses the need for external evidence by creating a self-contained bubble of logic that feels, to the believer, impenetrable.
The Genesis: From Aristotle to the Skeptics
The formal identification of circular reasoning traces back to the roots of Western philosophy. Aristotle, the father of formal logic, first categorized it in his work Prior Analytics (circa 350 BCE). He identified petitio principii—which literally translates to "assuming the initial point"—as a failure of demonstration. To Aristotle, a proper proof required moving from known truths to a new conclusion. Circularity, by contrast, was a "stagnant" argument.
The technique gained further intellectual scrutiny during the development of Skeptical philosophy, notably by Sextus Empiricus. The Skeptics used the "Problem of the Criterion" to argue that all human knowledge might be circular. They proposed that to know something is true, we need a "criterion" of truth; but to know that our criterion is reliable, we need a second criterion to prove it, and so on. This historical context reveals that circularity isn't just a "mistake" made by the uneducated; it is a fundamental challenge in how we ground any truth at all.
The Evolution of the Loop
As civilization moved through the Middle Ages and into the Enlightenment, the role of circular reasoning shifted from a philosophical puzzle to a cornerstone of dogmatic and political rhetoric.
Religious Contexts: In the medieval period, the "Circle of Faith" became a point of intense debate. The classic example—The scripture is true because it is the word of God, and we know it is the word of God because the scripture says so—wasn't always seen as a flaw. For some, it was an expression of the "self-authenticating" nature of the divine.
Scientific Paradigm Shifts: During the Scientific Revolution, circularity often appeared during transitions between theories. Critics of Isaac Newton, for instance, argued that defining "mass" as the quantity of matter, while defining "matter" by its mass, was a circular trap.
Political Legitimacy: The "Divine Right of Kings" functioned on a circular loop: The King is the sovereign because God chose him, and we know God chose him because he is the King.
As literacy grew and the printing press democratized information, these loops became harder to maintain. The Enlightenment prioritized external, empirical evidence—the "scientific method"—specifically to break these self-referential cycles.
Modern Application: Bubbles, Brands, and Bias
Today, circular reasoning has moved out of the dusty halls of logic and into the high-speed lanes of digital media and interpersonal psychology.
1. The Echo Chamber Effect
In modern public discourse, circularity is often systemic rather than just verbal. Social media algorithms create "algorithmic circularity." A user believes a conspiracy theory because their feed is full of it; their feed is full of it because the algorithm "knows" they believe it. The evidence and the belief become one and the same.
2. Corporate and Political Spin
We see this in branding and policy. A corporation might claim, "Our product is the industry leader because it is the best-selling." This ignores the possibility that it is the best-selling due to a massive marketing budget or a monopoly, not inherent quality. In politics, circularity often masks a lack of substance: "We must protect our national interests because they are vital to the nation."
3. Interpersonal Manipulation
In toxic relationships or gaslighting scenarios, circular reasoning is a powerful tool for control. A manipulator might say, "If you loved me, you wouldn't question me." When the partner asks why, the response is, "Because questioning me proves you don't love me." The logic is a closed loop designed to prevent the victim from ever finding an exit.
How to Break the Circle
Understanding circular reasoning is like finding the seam in a piece of clothing; once you see it, you can unravel the whole garment.
Recognizing the Loop
To spot this technique, look for synonym swaps. If someone says, "Aggressive behavior is not permitted because it is against the rules to be combative," they haven't given a reason; they've just used a different word for the same thing. Ask yourself: If I take away the conclusion, is there any evidence left in the premise?
Using Logic Responsibly
If you want to communicate with integrity, practice External Validation.
Step 1: State your claim clearly.
Step 2: Provide a "Why" that exists outside of the claim itself. (e.g., "This policy is effective not just because it's our policy, but because it reduced turnover by 20% last year.")
Step 3: Acknowledge the "Foundational Assumptions." Sometimes, we have to start with a premise we can't prove (like "all humans deserve rights"). Being honest about these starting points is more persuasive than trying to hide them in a circular argument.
By learning to identify these "logical donuts," you empower yourself to demand more from the information you consume and the people you follow. True persuasion doesn't come from spinning in circles; it comes from building a bridge from the known to the unknown.
Keep Going!
Check out these related posts
