On 'Cogito Ergo Sum'
If this statement means that the only thing I can know to be true is that I exist, then that means I don't know if the reasoning used to deduce this statement is logically sound.
What evidence do we have that our reasoning is to be believed? The only reason that we trust our reasoning is because have reasoned that it is trustworthy. We trust our reasoning because we trust our reasoning.
I know that I came to this conclusion with the same human logic as cogito ergo sum, so this conclusion must be equally invalid.
Humans are imperfect-> humans 'invented' logic-> logic is not necessarily perfect.
"I do not know if I know anything."
Please fix any broken logic I have, or point me in the direction of relevant articles on how my thinking was outdone hundreds of years ago.
I think I could do little better than to point you to what Descartes himself says about this. It's quite right that, in the First Meditation, he does seem to bring even logical (or mathematical) reasoning into the scope of his sceptical doubt: "What is more, since sometimes I believe that others go astray in cases where they think they have the most perfect knowledge, may I not similarly go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or in some even simpler matter, if that is imaginable?" (CSM II, 14; AT VII, 21). And then, at the start of the Second Meditation, we get the Cogito which, on the face of it, certainly seems to have the form of a logical deduction of existence from thought. So is he really entitled to it at all? Couldn't he similarly go wrong there too? Well, Descartes would say no, and the clue to his solution is to be found in the Second Replies: "when we become aware that we are thinking things, this is a primary notion which is not derived by means of...