I am sure you have encountered it before, an argument that sounds confident, assertive, and even logical on the surface. But when you examine it closely, you will realize something strange: The conclusion is being used to prove itself. That is the essence of the Circular Argument Fallacy, a reasoning loop that begins and ends at the same place, offering no real proof in between.
It is like running a race on a track and claiming you have traveled the world because you have been moving, but in reality, you have gone nowhere, just in circles.
What is a Circular Argument?
A circular argument which is also known as begging the question or tautological reasoning, happens when an argument’s conclusion is assumed in its premise. Like instead of providing evidence or logical steps that lead to a conclusion, the conclusion is restated in different words as if it were evidence itself.
A good example would be: “I am trustworthy because I always tell the truth.”
This may sound convincing, but it does not actually prove why the person is trustworthy; it just repeats the claim in another form.
It is a reasoning loop because the conclusion (“I always tell the truth”) depends on the premise (“I am trustworthy”), which itself depends on the conclusion. No external evidence is provided; the argument just turns back on itself.
Why Circular Arguments Are So Common
Circular reasoning is more common than we think, in politics, in religion, in advertising, and even personal relationships. People use it unconsciously when they want to sound confident but lack solid evidence.
It feels persuasive because it is emotionally self-reinforcing; it reassures the speaker and sometimes the listener rather than convincing them.
Say for instance: “This brand is the best because everyone says it is the best.”
That kind of reasoning plays more on popularity and repetition than truth. And when repeated often enough, circular arguments can create an illusion of credibility; the louder or more often something is repeated, the truer it seems.
Why do people fall into circular logic? It is not always intentional. Sometimes it comes from confirmation bias; the tendency to interpret information in ways that confirm what we already believe.
When we are emotionally invested in an idea, we do not want to see flaws in our reasoning. And so, instead of seeking outside validation, we reinforce our own beliefs by restating them differently, and it feels logical because it fits the mental world we have already built.
But the problem is this: Truth does not need to be recycled; it needs to be demonstrated.
How to Recognize a Circular Argument
Here are signs that an argument might be going in circles:
- The conclusion appears in the premise: “He is a good leader because he is always right.”
- The argument offers no external evidence: “We know it is true because we believe it.”
- You feel convinced, but not informed: Circular reasoning often sounds neat but provides no new information or proof.
And to detect it, try this mental test: If I remove the conclusion, does the argument still make sense?
If the entire argument collapses without the conclusion, you are likely looking at circular reasoning.
Breaking the Circle of Circular Reasoning
If you want to avoid circular reasoning, practice intellectual humility; the willingness to question even your most cherished assumptions. Ask:
- What evidence supports this claim, beyond belief or repetition?
- Can someone who disagrees see the logic without already accepting my conclusion?
True reasoning invites challenge, not repetition. The moment we begin to defend our conclusions with fresh evidence rather than looping statements, we break the circle and real understanding begins.
In today’s world and just like always, where opinions are shouted louder than facts, where confidence is mistaken for competence, and where people would rather “feel right” than be right, the Socratic Method is a timeless invitation, not to argue, but to understand.
Socrates, the philosopher who never wrote a single book, transformed the way humans think by doing something simple: Asking questions. He believed that truth is not imposed; it is discovered, through inquiry, dialogue, and the humility to admit how little we know.
And in a world that rewards answers, Socrates reminds us that wisdom begins with honest questions.
The Socratic Method is not about debate; it is very very much about discovery, and it begins when we stop pretending to know everything and instead ask: “What do I truly believe, and why?”
Continue Reading: The Socratic Method of Thinking and Investigating: The Art of Questioning Your Way to Truth
Read Also: Truth Has Rules: The Basic Laws of Logic and Objective Thinking
Read Also: It’s Not Just How Much You Read, But What You Feed Your Mind
Read Also: Learning on Purpose: The Secret to a Life That Keeps Expanding
Conclusion
A circular argument is a trap that shows itself as certainty. It sounds like reason, but it is really just reassurance in disguise. When your conclusion becomes your premise, your logic stops growing; it just spins.
Good reasoning requires courage: The courage to let your beliefs be tested, to expose your conclusions to evidence, and to admit when they need refining. Because only then do your arguments and your mind move forward.
In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. – Jordan B. Peterson
Thinking, truly thinking is not always a safe act; I mean it is not always a polite conversation. It is not a rehearsed speech of what others already agree with, even if you are saying the same thing word for word. To think is to wrestle with reality, to test the limits of your own assumptions, and to confront truths that may make others, and even yourself, uncomfortable.
But in a culture that prizes comfort over conviction, silence over sincerity, many would rather avoid offense than risk the discomfort of truth. And as Peterson often says, “If you are speaking, you are going to offend someone; that is what speaking is.” The question, then, is not whether we will offend, but whether we will have the courage to pursue truth even when it disrupts the peace.
Continue Reading: The Courage to Think: Why Truth Often Offends Before It Enlightens
