Yes, indeed, some people think that because knowledge through demonstration requires knowledge of the primary things there is no knowledge; others think that there is knowledge, and that everything knowable is demonstrable. These other people agree that knowledge results only from demonstration, but since they claim that it is possible to demonstrate everything, since they take circular and reciprocal demonstration to be possible.
These chumps didn't live long enough to hear the king speak: "We reply that not all knowledge is demonstrative, and in fact knowledge of the immediate premises is indemonstrable."
The first group of people just want an infinite regress so just fuck them, no way to have any type of knowledge for these idiots. The second group are also quite dumb, unqualified demonstration clearly cannot be circular if it must be derived from what is prior and better known.
For suppose that if A is, necessarily B is, and that if B is, necessarily C is; it follows that if A is, C will be. Suppose, then, that if A is, then B necessarily is, and if B is, A is (since this is what circular argument is), and let A be C. In that case, to say that if B is, A is is to say that C is; this that if A is, C is. But since C is the same as A, it follows that those who allow circular demonstration simply say that if A is, then A is. On these terms it is easy to prove anything.
These fools both took for granted that all knowledge is produced from demonstration. Aristotle solution is showing we know things in a different way, which he calls induction.