Originally posted by JS357
irrationalism: a system of belief or action that disregards or contradicts rational principles.
circular reasoning: a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
The problem with the question "Is basing all conclusions based upon human reasoning a circular argument?" is, if it is true. its truth can't be reliably r ...[text shortened]... conclusions on human reasoning. That's why we call them conclusions. Besides, we need the eggs.
Right. Consider the following—
“Whatever Gawain says must be true
because
Gawain says he always tells the truth.”
—versus—
“If we want to measure anything,
we need a standard of measurement with which to measure.”
—or—
“The only way to reason about anything
is to apply reason.”
—versus—
“An argument is deductively valid if the conclusion follows from the premises;
this argument is deductively valid; therefore
it’s conclusions follow from the premises.”
—or—
“The only way the cat can escape is if someone lets him out;
the cat has escaped; therefore
someone let the cat out.”
_____________________________________________
Now consider the following—
“If one cannot reason from unreasonable arguments,
then all of one’s arguments will be logically flawed;
this argument is unreasonable; therefore
this argument is logically valid.”
—I think the very kind of absurdity you point out.
____________________________________________
NOTE: An argument is valid if its conclusions follow from the premises; an argument is sound if the conclusions also are empirically true. A circular “argument” can be formally valid, e.g.—
“If Gawain tells the truth, then Gawain tells the truth;
Gawain tells the truth; therefore
Gawain tells the truth.”
It might also express a true statement—but the truth does not follow from the terms of the "argument", (hence the “___” around “argument” here). This is why circular reasoning is considered an informal, not a formal, logical fallacy.