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
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
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