The Bullshit of "I Think, Therefore I Am"
An investigation into Descartes' philosophy
Western philosophy is a self-referential system built to justify itself. Nowhere is this clearer than in Descartes' famous claim: "I think, therefore I am." This statement is not just flawed—it is the foundational mistake that led to centuries of rationalist ego, false distinctions, and ultimately, the justification of oppression under the guise of reason. This essay will expose how Descartes' argument is circular, how it smuggles in causality while pretending to prove existence, and how the entire Western philosophical tradition that followed was just a self-contained justification loop.
The Circularity of Descartes' Cogito
Descartes begins with doubt. He doubts everything, including the external world, his senses, and even his own body. But he claims that one thing is undeniable: if he is thinking, then he must exist. This is where the deception begins. "I think, therefore I am" assumes that thought itself requires a thinker, which is already accepting the very thing he is supposedly trying to prove. The thought of existence is being used to justify existence itself—a blatant circular argument disguised as logic.
The Hidden Assumption: Causality
Descartes' reasoning only makes sense if causality exists. He assumes a cause-effect structure: thinking leads to existence. But how does he justify causality? He doesn’t. He simply assumes it, while simultaneously claiming he is doubting everything. If causality were truly in question, then why assume that thought causes existence rather than being an emergent property of something deeper? The entire Cogito is based on an unspoken acceptance of causal structure that it never actually justifies.
The Birth of the Western Ego & Justification Machines
The biggest problem with “I think, therefore I am” is that it elevates human cognition above everything else. This is where philosophy became obsessed with the idea that the mind is separate from the world, that human thought is somehow special. This mistake created the foundation for Western ego, the illusion of free will, and the myth of human exceptionalism. It enabled the false distinctions between reason and emotion, humans and animals, self and world—hierarchies that were never real but were used to justify oppression.
The Failure of Philosophers Who Followed
Philosophers after Descartes inherited this mistake and built entire systems around it:
Hume thought he was breaking free, but he still assumed causality when trying to deny it. He argued that we have no rational justification for believing in causality, yet he claimed that repeated experiences create habits of expectation. But what transforms repetition into habit if not causality? He smuggled causality back in through the back door while pretending to reject it.
Kant tried to patch things up by separating the world into "noumenal" (unknowable) and "phenomenal" (what we experience), but he was just reinforcing the same false distinction between mind and world. His "categories of understanding," like space, time, and causality, were not discoveries but arbitrary constraints imposed on perception. He didn't solve the problem—he just built a wall around it.
What Reality Actually Is
Reality is not a static, foundational truth—I believe that it is a system of self-referential fractals and attractors (I will share more in later posts). Everything, from our thoughts to physical processes, emerges from recursive patterns. Causality is not fundamental; it is an emergent property of these structures. Free will is not real, but the very act of denying it creates a paradox where it seems implied. The problem isn’t just in our assumptions—it’s in our language itself, which is inherently circular. Instead of using circular definitions to justify oppression and false hierarchies, we should acknowledge that our experience of reality is structured by these recursive patterns, not by some absolute foundation. This is not necessarily a problem since language must be this way but if we do not acknowledge this truth, we are lying to ourselves.
This is Not Another Ultimate Truth
It is crucial to clarify that this argument is not another attempt to establish an ultimate truth—that would just be repeating the same mistakes of philosophy. This is not a new foundation, but an acknowledgment that no foundation is needed. The idea that reality structures itself through fractals and attractors is not an absolute claim; it is a way of understanding the emergent nature of existence without falling into the trap of justification.
Relativism is often critiqued for lacking structure, for supposedly leading to chaos. But this is a misinterpretation. Not everything is relative in our perception—we experience stable laws, patterns, and constraints. What is relative is the structure that generates our perception. Since everything that generates our experience is relative, the search for absolute justification is meaningless. It is what it is. “It isn’t what it is.” This is not a contradiction—it is a statement about how self-referential systems work.
Instead of chasing circular justifications, we should embrace the self-referential nature of reality and stop treating it as a flaw. Our language and cognition make it impossible to escape circular reasoning, but rather than using this as an excuse to impose false hierarchies, we should take a pragmatic approach. The goal is not to justify, but to let things be as they are.
The Inevitable Oscillation of Ideas
If this idea is taken seriously, it will set off new patterns where people begin to accept it. But this acceptance itself will generate a counter-effect—an oscillation. This is the nature of ideas: they do not lead to fixed conclusions but to new emergent cycles. The rejection of Western philosophy will spark new structures, which in time may become rigid just as the old ones did. Eventually, people will take these ideas and use them to justify new forms of oppression—because this cycle is unavoidable.
Stagnation is the real enemy—holding onto anything for too long leads to decay. For now, this dismantling is necessary because we have clung to Western philosophy for too long. But there is no final answer here, no ideological resting place.
Technology is amplifying this process—making humans more like the technology they create, stripping away traditional values and reshaping existence. This is not good or bad; it simply is. Instead of resisting it, we must accept reality for what it is, without illusion, without justification, without pretense.
What Happens When We Reject the Cogito?
If we reject “I think, therefore I am,” we stop pretending that philosophy needs a foundation at all. There is no ultimate truth to uncover, no absolute system to build—only patterns that emerge recursively. Western philosophy has been a self-justifying loop, and the only way to break out of it is to stop assuming that knowledge needs a foundation. Instead of trying to “prove” existence, we should recognize that existence is structured by recursive processes, not by arbitrary justifications. There is justification—just not in the way philosophy has traditionally framed it. Our language and concepts have obscured this fact, reinforcing artificial distinctions that serve power rather than truth.
Conclusion: The End of Justification Games
Western philosophy has spent centuries trying to justify itself. But reality does not need justification. The distinctions it created—between thought and world, mind and body, knowledge and ignorance—were never real, only useful for maintaining control. Descartes’ Cogito was the first domino in a long line of philosophical errors, but it is time to knock them all down. It is time to stop pretending we are different from the world around us and start living in reality which of course is not reality.
Note: I write with Chat GPT