what is the problem with the argument " I think ,therefore I am"?

Answer 1

It leaves the question: So, am I just a thought?

Answer 2

There have been a number of criticisms of the cogito. The first of the two under scrutiny here concerns the nature of the step from "I am thinking" to "I exist". The contention is that this is a syllogistic inference, for it appears to require the extra premise: "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists", and that extra premise must surely have been rejected at an earlier stage of the doubt.

It could be argued that "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists" is self-evident, and thus not subject to the method of doubt. This is because it is true that any premise of the form: "Whatever has the property F, exists", but within the method of doubt, only the property of thinking is indubitably a property of the meditator. Descartes does not make use of this defence, however; as we have already seen, he responds to the criticism by conceding that there would indeed be an extra premise needed, but denying that the cogito is a syllogism.

Perhaps a more relevant contention is whether the 'I' to which Descartes refers is justified. In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue. The main objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I", is more than the cogito can justify.

Williams provides a meticulous and exhaustive examination of this objection. He argues, first, that it is impossible to make sense of "there is thinking" without relativising it to something. It seems at first as though this something needn't be a thinker, the "I", but Williams goes through each of the possibilities, demonstrating that none of them can do the job. He concludes that Descartes is justified in his formulation (though possibly without realising why that was so).

Answer 3

The obvious problem is that, through introspection, or our experience of consciousness, we have no way of moving to conclude the existence of any third-personal fact, verification of which would require a thought necessarily impossible, being, as Descartes is, bound to the evidence of his own consciousness alone.

Answer 4

Supposes the think IS a think,
the think IS with an "I"
inherence
subjectivity
existence implied by index.
that one cannot doubt doubting
and the essence of Being in general.

Answer 5

It infers solipsism. Only you know that you are thinking, and cannot be sure that others are. Therefore, others don't think and don't exist. Not to say that solipsism is incorrect, but it is extremely unlikely that only I exist- or maybe only you exist and I am part of your imagination?

Answer 6

...therefore I am what? a thinking person? A logical person? A better person? What does thinking make you?

What does it make you that; say, feeling does not?

Answer 7

1.it assumes that if you don't think your not there(sleeping,basic materials)..
2.i think reflect consciousness more than individuality(i am ___.)
3.it fails to keep in mind that we are basic materials first then we get organized to life so we are nature its infinitely here so you live but don't remember who you where.(I forgot i could think,I'm dead).
4. an amputated hand getting tortured would think twice about that one(lower life forms) (artificial intelligence too).

Answer 8

it dodges the question about the nature of reality and existence.
it is only a starting point.
the next logical question is " so what?"

Answer 9

Everything.