The phrase “I am, I exist” was one of the Latin statements made by Descartes that has the straightforward denotation which they exist. However, the “I” is not the relatively permanent person, but it may be a temporary thought and is quite different from something that second. The phrase provided by Descartes is a logical truth, and this means that it remains true even when subjected to piecemeal interpretations of its parts. Logical truths are also considered necessarily true. When the second Meditation begins, Descartes reaches the decisive level of self-doubt that was the argument about the existence of a dishonest god. At this point, there is self-examination to discover the extent of damage that doubt had on his belief system.
There are three important observations that serve to exemplify the statements made by Descartes. The first is that he claims that only the assurance of his existence that he has is. By doing so, he explicitly points out that even though he confirms his existence, he has not affirmed the existence of other things. He assumes that the reader will have to make that conclusion for himself. The second point is that even though he acknowledges that he exists, he does not mention that his existence is essential but instead (Kessler 38). Lastly, the very crux of the discussion, the idea that “I am, I exist” is true, not because of scientific deductions or empirical orientations but solely on the precision and self-evidence of the proposal.
The statement is true because whenever Descartes thought about his being and his existence, several possibilities would have occurred. One, even if there was a dishonest or evil god that confused him during his thinking process, his own belief in the existence of man would still be safe, as there was no way that one could be misled unless they existed in the first place in order to be tricked. In his own words, Descartes had already convinced himself that there was “……” (Kessler 39). In the same vein, Descartes also questions his sheer existence, but confirms that if he could convince himself of anything then it means that he certainly existed.
Human beings have the ability to convince themselves to go through with anything. This unique ability originates from the fact that each individual acknowledges that human beings exist in the world. It can then be deduced that from the idea that human beings exist, it is being safely concluded that Descartes’ statement was true to a larger extent in claiming that because he is present, he exists. To beef up this argument, certain excerpts from Descartes’ book, Principles of Philosophy, show that childhood narrow-mindedness is responsible for training the brain to be closely connected to the body in childhood. When an aspect is perceived by the brain, it is honestly assumed to exist precisely as seen without questioning into the way in which things have become so.
Some of the reasons that support the conclusion made by Descartes include three of his principle that he used as evidence to show that his methodology and framework were valid. His first principle was never to accept anything as the truth, but instead avoid precipitancy and discrimination in making judgments. In this way, he was able to exclude all doubt by only working with what was presented to his mind in an unambiguous and distinct way. His second principle involved conducting his thoughts in a sequence that started with simple known aspects and graduate slowly to more complex ideas all the while organizing his thought process. Lastly, he also made complete enumerations and reviews that served to assure him that nothing had been overlooked.