Analysis of "Cogito, ergo sum"

        "Cogito, ergo sum" translates to, "I think, therefore I am". It is a quote from Descartes' book titled Meditations. After doubting everything's existence, he realised that the only thing he can be sure exists is himself. Because, he is doubting whether he exists or not, and one cannot doubt without existing. How did Descartes get to this conclusion? Is the conclusion valid? Do thoughts prove the existence of an "I"?

    Firstly, let us take a closer look at what "I think, therefore I am." means. Descartes put forward an idea of the possibility of an "Evil Demon". A being that feeds him with all his thoughts and actions, giving the illusion of free will. This possibility frightened Descartes because it could be that nothing truly exists. He eventually came up with the following argument: There exists a doubt, and doubt cannot exist without the existence of a doubter, therefore I exist. Hence, I think. therefore I am. Descartes had proven his own existence within a sea of doubt.

    But did Descartes truly prove his existence? Another philosopher named Lichtenberg argued as such, we can say "it thinks" just as we say "it thunders". There does not have to be a "thinker", just as there does not have to be a "thunderer". But is this true? Can thoughts and doubts simply exist in a box without being used by someone? Even thunder has a "user", lightning. The thinker can act as the lightning for thoughts and doubts as it does with thunder.

    However, there is another problem within Descartes' argument which is the existence of doubt. Considering we are working within Descartes' framework, there exists a possibility of an "Evil Demon" feeding Descartes with all his thoughts and actions including his doubts. How can Descartes throw out the possibility of the demon simply creating the illusion of the existence of a doubter? Descartes solved this through his finding of God. He argued as such: There exists the idea of a perfect being in his mind, since the idea exists in his mind, it has to be given by something as perfect or more perfect than the idea itself, God is the only perfect being, therefore God exists. There are counterarguments to this. For example, does a perfect idea require a source that is as perfect? I can say that I have an idea of a person who is always right in my mind, but that doesn't mean that a person who is always right puts that idea in my head. The existence of the idea did not come from something with qualities of the idea. Without the usage of God, it seems "Cogito, ergo sum" cannot truly rule out the possibility of an "Evil Demon".

    In conclusion, "Cogito, ergo sum" is an attempt at proving the existence of oneself within a sea of doubt. In reality, it actually only proves that we cannot doubt our own existence, it doesn't actually prove we exist. However, I believe it is still valuable, because it doesn't matter whether we exist or not as long as we cannot tell the difference.