Was Descartes right in cogito ergo sum?

Question

Descartes said, I think therefore I am.

Is it an absolute truth? If you realise you are thinking, the act of realising proves that you exist. Inevitably, by proving you exist you also prove that something outside you exists.

Or is there a way around it? The reason why I'm asking is that cogito is one of the very few things I believe in nearly 100%, have been wondering if there are flaws.

Answer 1

The cogito argument, as one of philosophy’s most famous proofs, does contain its limitations. It cannot prove anything other one’s existence and ability to think—it cannot prove anything else about the existence of the world or anything further about one’s physical features, etc. The cogito statement is initially very persuasive since the main thrust of the argument is that one cannot say “I exist” without actually existing. The very act of calling into question existence or proclaiming existence in turn proves existence. The question becomes whether this is sufficient to prove existence or if Descartes could have gone further with his radical doubt.

The simple answer is that Descartes, can indeed, go even further with his doubt and the act of doubting existence does not guarantee one’s establishment as a “thinking thing.”

The first problem in the cogito argument is the bridge made from “I think” to “I am.” While on the surface the connection between thinking and existing is fairly sound, the nature of what it means to “think” and how this connects with “existence” could still be called into doubt. Does the fact that “thinking” happens (by some entity), guarantee existence of the same entity? Descartes within the cogito argument never fully explores this idea. There is still an underlying assumption that Descartes makes within his radical doubt that thinking beings have to exist. It could be even argued that this “thinking” (whatever that constitutes) does not require a physical self or even a being in any form. This shows that Descartes was still making assumptions and truly didn’t go deep enough with his radical doubt. This is only one assumption that Descartes skips over as he makes his cogito argument, however. There are a slew of other assumptions that have to be made to make the cogito claim: “that I am the one who is thinking, that there must be something that is thinking in the first place, that thinking is an activity and the effect of a being who is considered the cause, that there is an ‘I,” and finally, that is has already been determined what is meant by thinking—that I know what thinking is.” (Nietzsche). All of these statements that Friedrich Nietzsche points out from Beyond Good and Evil show problems from jumping straight from acknowledging thinking to proving existence. Many assumptions are still made by Descartes, as Nietzsche points out, thus showing that Descartes is unsuccessful in fully carrying out true radical doubt and breaking down all his previous assumptions and foundations. As Nietzsche shows, Descartes is still assuming that there is an “I” that is doing this thinking, and still makes assumptions upon what exactly constitutes the process of “thinking.” Given all the inherent problems and assumptions that are impossible to truly prove regarding the state of thinking, the cogito argument is ultimately unsuccessful and proving existence. The only thing that can be proven through Descartes’ arguments and meditations through these initial stages is that there is some thinking being done. Not necessarily “I” thinking, nor that thinking is even related one’s existence.

Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” arguments made through the Meditations are some of the most debated and famous statements in philosophy. Descartes’ intentions were to break down all underlying assumptions and rebuild his thoughts on immediate certainties—starting with the idea that thought proves one’s existence as a thinking thing. But right there within that argument does Descartes fail to recognize a whole batch of further assumptions that not only exist, but have to be made in order to make the bridge from a state of thinking (somewhere) to a state of one’s own existence. These assumptions in themselves, display the problem that lies within the cogito argument to prove existence—“the process expressed in the proposition ‘I think,’ [results in] a whole set of bold claims that are difficult, perhaps impossible to establish.” (Nietzsche).

Answer 2

Just because something is true, does not mean it excludes all other possibilities.
We all incorporate the correctness and the flaws.

Answer 3

He was right:
Cognoscenti are "objects of cognition."
Cognoscenti have form and shape.
The five senses detect form and shape.
Perception is "perception of" the detection of cognoscenti.
Perception is sometimes conscious, sometimes sub-conscious.
Consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms, therefore both consciousness and cognoscenti exist.
Consciousness belongs to animal life.
Humans belong to the "differentia" called Animalia; we are therefore animals.
Humans therefore have consciousness of cognoscenti, an impossibility if you did not exist.
"I think" is "cogito," using the same base word as "cognition" and "cognoscenti."
To "think" is to be conscious of form and shape.
To be conscious of form and shape is proof of one's existence, since consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction, where as consciousness "of something" is proof of the existence of cognition.

Answer 4

Was he right? Yes and no.

Edit..............

thumbs down already? How many of you guys actually have a clue what am i referring to?