How to refute my thinking, so I am?

1, ridiculous! The answers of the above two people are ridiculous! "I think therefore I am" is not a causal inference at all. How to refute it as a condition and conclusion? ! Even if I attribute "I think therefore I am" to "idealism" (not necessarily), and then refuse to believe it with an attitude of distrust of idealism, it is not a rebuttal! These two distortions of "I think, therefore I am" are the most common prejudices that do not understand philosophy.

The key problem is to understand what "I think therefore I am" is saying. In fact, Descartes' proposition was originally just: "I think, I save." The inference it contains is this: any doubt must be "thinking" at the same time, so whether it is cognition or doubt, such a principle must be established, which is also called the identity of thinking; It should be noted that the "I" in this proposition is not an individual or subjective me, but an abstract and universal personality. Since "I think" (a universal or universal thought) is inevitable, it must have a thinker, and because thinkers must need an existence, it is necessary to establish "I am" or "existence". Descartes regards "I think, I exist" as the first principle of epistemology or metaphysics, and regards it as a reflective self-evident principle.

As a pure thinking, "I think therefore I am" can be considered irrefutable or unnecessary. What can be refuted is the role of this proposition. For example, it can be said that "I think therefore I am" is not self-evident, thus refuting Descartes' flaunting of this proposition, which is feasible. In other words, "I think therefore I am" contains or presupposes a premise: either that premise is not self-evident, or that premise means that "I think therefore I am" is not a self-evident first principle.