John C. Medaille wrote: > The problem I have with the cogito is that it > assumes what it sets out to prove. How do we know > that the "I" is doing the thinking? Personally, > if I were to try to set forth a "proof" of my > existence (which I never actually do), I would > far rather say, "I take a crap, therefore I am"; > I'm pretty sure that's me on the pot. Why elevate > the purely mental over the extra-mental? This simply miscasts the "argument". It is not the kind of "demonstration" that you appear to have in mind, especially not of the "pretty sure" kind. You may object to the phrasing (which Descartes used in French as well), but it would be really baffling if you had any problem with the intent. The intent of course is to make a simple point: roughly, if you try to doubt every ontological claim, you cannot (coherently). Of course there are deep difficulties in understanding the meaning of the phrase "I am", but that is a different sort of criticism, and your post clearly treats this as unproblematic. Cheers, Alan Isaac