| Re: Have I just disproven The Cogito?
This was actually directly copied and pasted from another site, which was already in the middle of a discussion on this when I posted it. I realise I havent actually explained for example what the evil demon theory was or what I am disproving.
Descartes attempted to prove once and for all that knowledge exists. To do this, he abandoned forever faith in any knowledge he currently thought he had, and set about creating proof from scratch. The Evil Demon Hypothesis is his way of keeping himself on track. The theory is that we cannot know anything conclusively because for all we know an evil demon of some kind may be distorting everything we know (see Chapter 1 of the Meditations). Descartes did not think such a demon existed. I do not think such a demon exists. However, I also believe that the demon's existence cannot be disproven, thus we have no way of proving anything conclusively. For if the demon could theoretically exist, then it could theoretically distort anything we claim to be true. Including logic.
The Cogito was what Descartes found that did not fall foul of anything even such a demon could do; even if he is being utterly fooled, then something must exist to be fooled. I think, therefore I am. Actually, this was in an earlier book (the Discourse on Method), because it does not work. If all that can be proven is one's own existence, then arriving at that via a logical argument is fallacious, since the demon could change the laws of logic (again, not likely, but try proving otherwise). So he replaced this, in the Second Meditation, with I am, I exist. However, this is essentially the same since it is still based upon the premise I am capable of being decieved, therefore something must exist to be deceived. If we accept the first cogito fails (for Descartes' own reasons, if nothing else) then if we can rephrase the second cogito as the first without losing the meaning, then it also fails.
Faith is not my intention. I put nothing to faith in this argument. It is more of a "what if" situation. I posit that there is no proof of anything, and challenge the world to prove otherwise. The cogito is a damn good attempt, but it does not work. I remind you that I do not believe the demon exists, nor do I believe we do not exist. But disproving either theory is to me beyond the realm of human capacity, and until it is done my scepticism remains.
Regarding not enough logical argument. My premise is that logic is unstable. I can call it into question. I have circumstantial evidence of logic working only. There is no way of proving to me that every single time events will play out according to logic. There is no way of knowing if a ship passing through a wake is actually creating that wake (the logical explanation) or if some unknown force, perhaps deep beneath the ocean, is creating it (Hume's rejection of Ockam's Razor (the simplest explanation is probably the correct one) and Cause and Effect theory). Yes, I am name dropping philosophers and theories. But only to confirm that I know the arguments from both sides and am making a considered, objective epistimilogical argument with a real basis in existing philosophical theory. Ayer, for example, is quoted because his suppositions are crucial to my arguments; likewise Hume just there for my questioning the sense of blindly trusting logic. As a sceptic I call all things into question. Yes, there is not enough logical argument, but I cannot use logic if I am questioning its innate value.
I hope this clarifies something. | 
