“I think, therefore I am”. On the one hand Descartes‘ thesis tends to elicit reactions of awe, on the other bewilderment at why someone would attempt to prove something so obvious. But, before one can understand the importance of Descartes’ conclusion cogito, ergo sum, it is essential to understand Descartes epistemology.
Descartes was a rationalist – in his work he uses methodological skepticism to undermine the certainty of knowledge gained by sensation. As an example, Descartes offers his “evil genius doubt” thesis, in which he postulates that it is possible that a powerful and evil demon has given him flawed faculties. Thus Descartes argues that even the most supposedly simple and evident matters must be called into question.
However, there are some matters of which one can be sure. For example, one must be doubting of something or doubt that they are doubting. Doubting requires thinking – thinking requires a thinker – ergo, “I think, there I am”. For the evil genius to be a deceiver, it takes something to be deceived. As a further example, take Descartes’ thesis in reverse: “I don’t think, there I am not”. Clearly it is false, for it requires thinking to think that one does not think.
Even though Descartes found a use for skepticism in his method, he is not an extreme skeptic such as the likes of Pyrrho. According to Descartes, ideas such as 3 + 3 = 6 or triangles have three sides are knowable. In fact, these ideas are known innately (hence Descartes’ rationalism).
Does any of this sound familiar? Descartes’ thought experiments are eerily similar to Plato’s allegory of the cave. And this is precisely the Cartesian criticism of the Aristotelian-Scholastic tradition, that like the prisoners of the cave they have become overly dogmatic regarding the power of sensation and have confused substance for shadow and shadow for substance.




