Descartes Argument Analysis

Descartes is the pioneer of modern philosophy. His "I think, therefore I am" is the first principle and proposition of his philosophical system. His thoughts occupied an extremely important position in the whole history of philosophy. At first, Descartes wrote in Meditation, “The first such belief was that I had a face, hands, arms and the whole structure of bodily parts that corpses also have—I call it the body,” which gives his first understanding to “I”, then he continues says, “The next belief was that I ate and drank, that I moved about, and that I engaged in sense-perception and thinking; these things, I thought, were done by the soul.”(4, lines 21-26) Later, he doubts the God. He thinks there is no world, no body, and therefore cannot
walk and feel. He starts to think what is “I”, Descartes says in the Discourse, “Gogito,ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). That means I, as a thinking being, am really existent. Descartes’ basis for the conclusion that he exists arises from a simple argument that if I try to doubt the authenticity of "I am thinking", the act of "doubt" itself becomes part of the thinking, thus proving the existence of the "I am thinking". Therefore, the "I think" of the authenticity can not be suspected. Form these few words, he wants to proof that he exists and also wants to find his essence.
Some critics think his argument is not compelling.
Opponents tend to redefine Descartes’ argument into the following syllogisms: (1) I think; (2) Where the thinker is present; (3) Therefore I exist. Those critics thought that Descartes cannot say “I” first, because this seems to add his subjective wills, tacitly approved in his mind. Also, the ‘Therefore’ makes the argument look like a premises of the conclusion. Critics argue that Descartes cannot give the conclusion an owner. He may say “thinking is being implementing” and “existing is being implementing.” That’s why some people think Descartes’ argument is not right. What is “thinking”? In this book, An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy, Anthony Kenny says, “it is clear that any form of inner conscious activity counts as thought; but of course the thought in question here is the self-reflexive thought that he is thinking” (211, lines 20-22). What is “I”? Descartes gives the explanation in Meditation, “I am simply a thing that thinks—a mind, or soul, or intellect, or reason, these being words whose meaning I have only just come to know.” Also, he asks himself and answers it, “what am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses.” (5, lines
32-34)
Descartes rule out all that is false firstly, and then thinks about what is truth.
He believes that when he is thinking a problem, it is clear that he should be existence, or how he can think? So he believes that I was thinking, so I was. For the refutation of this theory, I think, as many critics believe, as the beginning, exclude translation factor, he uses “I”, which he has already given a subject to the “think”, so “I am” is of course correct. For example, by the analogy method, we talk about chook and egg. Descartes believes “I think”, so “I exist.” Critics believe Descartes cannot say that because he says “I think” first. It seems like such question: “is there chook first or egg first?” Obviously, we are not sure. Also, as for “think”, we cannot say “I am thinking”, maybe can say “It is thinking.” What is "It"? In the above case, “it” only can infer that the acting about thinking this behavior was carried out. With this alone, there is no way to infer the existence of an "I", can only come to the existence of an "it." So Descartes’ point of view of this sentence has already had a subjective. Even if I knew I am thinking, but I could not be sure that it was "I" doing this and I could not prove myself is
existent.
Descartes in the Meditation second reply from another perspective response to the critics about this question and syllogism query: When someone says, "I am thinking, so I am, or I am," he does not infer the existence, but with the simple intuition of the mind, as something self-evident. It is clear from the facts to see that, if the conclusion is deduced by syllogism, he would have to have the prerequisite - every thought is knowledge that has always existed. In fact, he knew this because he own experience: he thought, but he did not exist, it is impossible. So, he did not give the subjective wills that he gave the owner to the “think.”
He did provide a lot of evident to prove his thought, “I think, therefore I am.” In the rest of the Meditation Descartes going to answer the question “what am I, this I whom I know to exist?” He believes, “The fact that it is I who doubt and understand and want is so obvious that I can’t see how to make it any clearer. But the ‘I’ who imagines is also this same ‘I’” (6, lines 16-18). Also he says, “For even if (as I am pretending) none of the things that I imagine really exist, I really do imagine them, and this is part of my thinking” (6, lines 18-20). Descartes’ “think” in here, as a conscious activity that is the premise of regard “think” as a subject. So in fact, “I think, I am” is a circular argument. Also, through the Wax theory, he says “Surely, I am aware of my own self in a truer and more certain way than I am of the wax, and also in a much more distinct and evident way. What leads me to think that the wax exists—namely, that I see it— leads much more obviously to the conclusion that I exist”(7, line 31-34).