Is circular reasoning always a fallacy?
Suppose the following dialogue: >... >"I accept only one notion of land property. Namely, 'I am doing my stuff here, therefore I am here". >"But this means," he responded, "you can break into any place and stay there, using this rule." >"There is another rule, though. Right to act in its most natural sense, 'I am here, therefore I am doing my stuff here." >"But do not these rules put together become circular reasoning?" >"Of course, they do," I put my head closer to him, "and this is exactly that rare case when circular reasoning is not only sufficient, but is necessary." >"But why is that? Circular reasoning never was a correct argument." >"There are many circular things happening in nature. Life forms, for example, exist only in order to produce new life forms or to prolongate their own lifetime. Is there any reason to say this can't be the case for reason itself? Why must reasoning not be circular?" >... Can circular reasoning ever be justified? For example, we know all the words in our languages can't be defined using other words without the use of circularity. We know logic can't prove itself without circularity. Are these arguments rational? Are there any other arguments where circular reasoning is still rational?