Scrutinizing "Cogito Ergo Sum"

Hyperbolic doubt is the process of doubting one’s own beliefs, or being skeptical of one’s own beliefs. This method of doubt was proposed by French philosopher René Descartes in his treatise Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes intended to systematically doubt all of his beliefs in an attempt to build a belief system consisting of only true beliefs. Eventually, Descartes would apply this doubt to the fact of his own existence. His famous resolution, “Cogito Ergo Sum”, or, “I think, therefore I am”, was the end result. Descartes attempted to doubt his own existence, but found that his doubting proved his existence. It is impossible for one to doubt if one does not exist. This realization led to revolution of thought in philosophy and culture. However, this argument has a few areas for criticism or concern. The main crux of the problem is the assumption revolving around the “I”. The idea is that the cogito or thought itself justifies existence of an entity(in this case, Descartes). In some sense, the conclusion is an incomplete syllogism. Cogito Ergo Sum fails to assert a necessary extra premise, that whatever has the property of thinking exists. Descartes could have argued that this premise is merely self-evident(that being that for something to have the ability of thinking, there must be a thinker), and therefore not subject to his model of doubt. Logically, this makes sense, because the Principle of Instantiation states that “Whatever has the property X, exists”. If that property is thinking, then there is a thinker. For the previous argument against the cogito, this defense might serve. The extra premise is an area for contention, but the justification of the “I” is still the main issue. Perhaps Descartes should have simply stated “thinking is happening”. That does not mean that the thought occurring is the result of an entity existing. When we talk of a thought, or when we say “I’m thinking”, we’re referring to something happening from a third-person perspective. Through our experience of consciousness or our introspection, we can’t verify the existence of any third person “fact”, namely that of our own existence. You can’t objectively state something based on the content of consciousness. The mind’s subjective content doesn’t allow for a verification like that. I think Descartes’ assertion has more of a mental appeal than merit based on logical infallibility. It provokes lots of questions about the nature of objectivity and subjectivity in relation to existence, and is an interesting implementation of Descartes’ own doubt process. However, it remains an argument rather than a fact.