Only Words Can Define Words

Definitions are a linguistic phenomenon that would be irrelevant to all of life if it was not for the need to communicate with other beings using words.  Otherwise, concepts, truths, and experiences would be understood directly by people who are aware of them without any pressing need to pair them with words.  The deeply social nature of ordinary human life makes communication and definitions an indispensable part of human interaction.  If someone asks you to define an important word or explain what you mean by a broader sentence, it can be very helpful to have already thought about a key aspect of definitions.

You always have to use words to explain what is meant by other words.  This is the inescapable nature of a definition!  One can point to sensory objects one is referring to, one can gesture to aid a verbal explanation, and one can grasp certain ideas just by immediate thought, but none of these are examples of using definitions.  To define a word or an extended phrase, one must use other words.  It is impossible for definitions to have any other kind of linguistic description.  Thus, it is outright folly to think that the use of the same word in a definition and a separate definition clarifying what is meant by some other word within the prior definition is an automatic sign of "circular reasoning."

First of all, the concepts and their connection to each other might not be circular despite some of the same words being used to described different concepts.  Language is primarily about communication and has no ultimate necessity outside of this context.  Yes, a person can think using words, but this is neither necessary nor circular; it is just an aid to assessing an idea.  Second, using words to define words is inevitable.  This is not a sign of circularity in how one approaches a concept because the concept might be true and provable.  Using words to clarify what a person means by other words is the only way that non-telepathic beings can provide definitions.

At some point, some of the same words might show up in several linked definitions that are being used to illuminate each other.  Does this mean someone has failed to be rational or to communicate as clearly as the limitations of language allow?  Only a fool would believe so.  Unfortunately, the world is full of fools who might believe this or be goaded into believing it by others they want to ideologically fit in with.  Identifying and pointing out linguistic repetition is not always a mark of philosophical victory, refutation, or even basic comprehension of what is being communicated.  Sometimes all it means is that someone has come to a mistaken conclusion about a fact that contradicts their stances on language.