Recall the following definition of the Archimedean property:
For each $x \in \Bbb{R}$, there exists some $n \in \Bbb{N}$ such that $n>x$.
My textbook proves this by invoking the completeness axiom. My first instinct however was to use the ceiling function:
Proof: Choose any $x \in \Bbb{R}$. Then consider $n=1+\lceil x \rceil$. By definition, $n>x$, as desired.
This seems like cheating though. Does the ceiling function implicitly depend on the completeness axiom? Is my proof circular?
The ceiling function does not depend on completeness: its restriction to $\Bbb Q$ is well-defined, and the rationals are not complete. It does not, strictly speaking, depend on the Archimedean property either: it is perfectly possible to define $\lceil x\rceil$ to be $\min\{n\in\Bbb Z:x\le n\}$ when that minimum exists, and then to ask what the domain of this ceiling function is. It’s that domain that depends on the Archimedean property: the Archimedean property is equivalent to the statement that the domain of the ceiling function is $\Bbb R$.
Since your argument depends on the fact that the domain of the ceiling function is all of $\Bbb R$, and that fact is equivalent to the fact that $\Bbb R$ has the Archimedean property, your argument is indeed circular.