I think this argument is getting circular.
Whether or not something is a circle depends on what definition you consider to be a circle.
The most sensible definition is that a circle is whatever appears to have a super symmetry (at least 2 dimensionally.) DIRECTLY TO THE SENSES (Consciousness.) Since this is the most direct to the senses, it is the most sensible.
James seems to say, the definition of a circle is whatever is a super symmetry no matter at what point in time, outside of the senses and consciousness, remains always a super symmetry. Since this does not exist in most cases then the only definition available is that circles are atoms, but this of course makes the definition redundant so why call atoms circles and circles atoms, perhaps call them microspheres, which have 3 dimensional super symmetry.
We could further refine our definitions and say there are different qualities of circles, visually perfect circles, pixellated circles, or polygonal looking circle. Circle being a simple pronoun, to be further fleshed out and defined using adjectives for precision.
James is right if the definition matches his definition of circle in his head.
Magnus is right if the definition matches his definition of circle in his head.
But I think Magnus is more right because his definition seems better.
Bottom line, James and Magnus are both right, just Magnus is more right.
Both can masturbate to their own glory and philosophical dominance in peace.
If there’s one thing for sure, everybody likes circles. boobs, wheels, butts, balls you name it. People are obsessed with balls.
[size=85]Mostly balls, however ALL are circles (including pucks) on at least the 2 dimensions.[/size]