In my studies of Mathematics and (mostly) Theoretical Computer Science I've encountered what is known as Munchhausen's Trilemma which purports to demonstrate nothing can be actually be proved because all proofs are one of the following:
- The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
- The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
- The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
My response: What's wrong with circular reasoning in the first place? I simply disagree fundamentally with the notion that we can't have "closed systems" of knowledge. Why is there this idea that we need some kickstarter axioms to prevent going around in circles? It's not that I don't appreciate the need for axioms from a convenience perspective. It's that I don't think that there's really no merit to going around in circles in the first place!
"I am God therefore I am God" is valid. Things don't need to make sense. After all sense is not an inherent property of a statement. It requires interpretation to judge that. Interpretation from another language - in the form of symbolic manipulation. It's all inherently meaningless - so why bother with making sense when you can just be valid.
This is my argument for why circular reasoning is a blessing. Instead of hunting down possibly ad infinitum the "source", the most "fundamental" axiom, the "point", we can prevent the existence of the Hydra altogether. It's either circular reasoning, or the same thing in disguise but with more stress on top of it - the difference is that in the latter the circle never runs out. Why choose stress?