On "Circular Reasoning"

[liam]

In the case of setting up the justification for the TAG or the prepositional argument, the charge of "circular reasoning" is unfounded. Others more familiar with philosophy can critique this thinking and see if I'm missing anything but here's how I currently see it:

1. If I say that a book proves that the same book is true because the same book says so, this is circular reasoning.

There is nothing circular about the defence of one book by said book, it isn't necessarily wrong but rather if one proposition attempts to prove something upon which it relies to be valid then it would be circular. For example, if I were to write a book and rely, in chapter 5, on something that I proved to be axiomatically true in chapter 1, then it would not be circular reasoning so long as I did not rely on what I am attempting to prove in order to assert the axiomatic truth's truthfulness.