Cogito existential certainty

Thank you.
But even if I don't think anything, I can't know it. And once I “know” it means I think. I can also not exist and then the conclusion I exist is incorrect. But it's not clear to me logically how you can say such a thing. Because once you've made some kind of claim, you assume your ability to make claims. How logically can you argue with that? Give me a logical argument? You're necessarily contradicting yourself, aren't you? In other words, logically it seems like a winning argument. So why not say that logically this is also a proof? I didn't understand how exactly it's possible to evade it with logical tricks. Any attempt to get away from the basic premise that I think rules out that I think.

And why then do you see this proof as an explanation that is “reasonable” and not certain? After all, it's self-evident and so intuitive, why not adopt it as something completely certain?

Descartes simply wanted to show that the existence of the self cannot be doubted. And he was right, because one must exist in order to doubt.
His argument is correct, as long as one understands what he is trying to do and what he is not trying to do.

For me, the feeling that I exist is certain enough in itself. If you are looking for something very intuitive. But if that is not enough and I need a cogito, it is because you are looking for absolute logical certainty and not intuition, that is, an argument that is certainly true and not based on assumptions. The cogito is not like that.
I explained that logically I may not think (the claim that I think is a claim of fact, and therefore subject to all the problems of a claim of fact).

Roni, you mean to say that it is still possible that I do not think (and do not doubt) and do not exist. Those are my words.