>>225751if we see time - even of just that of our perception - as being linear or non-linear (circular, orthogonal, etc.), we're already making a subtle fallacy.
when we look for time in our perception we immediately find the following,
(1) our perception is in a certain state,
(2) that state is changing.
and that is in essence what time is (then we can derive further facts about it from those two if we want to, eg, that it is continuous and not discrete, that it has no initial and final state, and so on). clearly, there's nothing about lines or circles there. we only create such a model of it in thought (which is obviously posterior to time itself, ie, the changing of perceptions) through a certain abstraction which effectively consists of taking away time from experience but still calling it the same. we do what you said of imagining the moments of experience of our lives as being placed on a line, and then see that maybe a circle makes more sense. regardless of the shape we put them in, in that model, we're imagining them each as frozen moments, which contradicts (2), and in that circle or line all of them are "happening all at once", which contradicts (1). but (1) and (2) are fundamental and necessary facts of experience that can be confirmed at any and all moments by directly examining it, so anything contradicting them must be false.
besides, lines and circles are clearly space and therefore not time (this is all from a kantian/transcendental perspective). that seems very obvious to me, so even my first argument should be unnecessary to see the fallacy, but somehow i never see anyone pointing that out when people debate whether time is linear or non-linear.