After finishing Peterson’s book (12-rules), I’ve been thinking a lot about philosophy.
Originally penned in 1637, the proposition from the famous Latin philosopher Rene Descartes, “I Think, Therefore I Am,” became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt.
The critique against the well-known proposition is the presupposition of an "I" doing the thinking, so that the most Descartes was entitled to say was, "thinking is occurring."
Upon learning of this critique, I endeavored to restate it in such a way that overcomes such criticism. Do you think I was successful in doing so?