The phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum" translates from Latin into English as "I think, therefore I am." It was a phrase used in René Descartes in his book, Discourse on the Method, published in 1637. It is a very famous philosophical argument and has been debated for centuries. I will try and see the real meaning of the phrase Descartes used around four hundred centuries ago.
The main issue that many philosophers have with Descartes' statements is a subtle thing. He assumes that every thought has a thinker. However, Descartes never seems to back this claim in his work.
There is a Danish philosopher named Søren Kierkegaard who gave criticism to "Cogito Ergo Sum". Wikipedia tells us that Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. A later report tells us that the reality of "I think," can be challenged. It states that acquiring the knowledge of this is close to impossible.
Is the "I think" part of Cogito Ergo Sum true as many would argue that saying "I hear, therefore I am" and "I see, therefore I am" could be seen as true using Descartes' logic. Many sceptics argue that the first part is untrue and unnecessary to the statement.
The statement, "I think, therefore I am," presumes existence. However, is Descartes so wrong for assuming this as if you do not exist, you cannot think, right? But, when the self-awareness dissolves there is only awareness. Of what? An 'I'? A 'this'? A Oneness? A duality? Of everything? Of nothing?
Is it accurate to say that we are really in control or do we essentially think about our activities?
Existence is the pivotal thing that everything determines their appearance. Along these lines, when I state, "Am I?" the one thing I can comfortably answer without a doubt is that "I appear to be," as does everything else around me.
There is no genuine approach to know whether you can have "I am" without there being an "I." However, at moments when the immersion is profound, there is no idea of it being here.
