Sefl evident vs circular reasoning

[nova_n]

I will eventually ask one of my teachers this question

But in some instances cant you say that circular reasoning is self evident?

A quick example of self evident:

there are clouds in the sky.

Whell how do you know?

Because clouds are in the sky. Clearly

But cant this be circular? the clouds exist...because...the clouds exist....


So if i say everything i say is right, because everything i say is right, its circular. But cant i say its self evident?

[Ninja]

A cloud is partly defined by being in the sky. It wouldn't be one if it wasn't. Here's the definition of 'cloud' that you can get from a quick Google search: "a visible mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere, typically high above the ground."

Something is self-evident when it is inherently perceivable by usage of one's senses and logic. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the person that is reasoning begins their line of thought with what they are trying to prove. Definitions do not need to be proven; they are simply the statements derived by logically using self-evident truths to form sentences which aid humans in communication and explanation of concepts.

One can only state that something is self-evident by correctly using one's cognitive and logical abilities. Circular reasoning is one result of a specific misuse of the aforementioned abilities.

[Zonoro13]

"There are clouds in the sky" is not self-evident. It's justified by sense perception (you can see clouds in the sky, and recognize what a cloud is from memory). Read up on epistemology.