Reflection Piece

Descartes famously noted in his Discourse on the Method that the “cogito argument” (“I think, therefore I am”) constitutes the fundamental principle of absolute, indubitable certainty, a principle upon which ALL human knowledge can be based and from which ALL human knowledge derives. This argument has come to be understood by subsequent philosophers as radical rationalism (rationalism = that the origin and source of knowledge is the pure ideas of the mind, a mind cut off from all sensuous objects and experiences).

At some basic level, Descartes argument is convincing (especially if you follow him in his thought experiment). But, what do you think Descartes misses or leaves out or fails to properly reflect on? Are there things that the cogito argument misses, and if so, can it serve as an adequate foundation for all human knowledge?

In 450-650 words, I would like you to offer a brief summary of Descartes claim of “I think, therefore I am,” and then offer some reflections on what you think it misses, overlooks, or does not take into account.