Question

Hello Rabbi,
I’ve reached page 100 of your book Truth and Unstable.
Regarding the fallacy you suggest in the cogito, I’d like a bit more elaboration.
From what I understood, you explain that this is a purely logical fallacy, meaning it is invalid. (It’s simply not true that this is the opposite of that.)
I’d like you to present it the way you did previously (regarding the “hocus pocus” arguments), meaning: to posit an assumption that would make the argument valid, and then reject that assumption.
I tried to do that—what do you think?
Let’s assume we accept Descartes’ logical necessity (that in any case we find ourselves thinking, which you disproved).
From there Descartes infers that we exist, meaning that one cannot think without physical existence, because then who is the one thinking or doubting?
But here he has assumed the conclusion, namely that there is real physical existence if you think, whereas that is precisely the question.
If one does not assume that, one can reach a different conclusion. For example: I think, therefore I exist—but we will not speak of real physical existence, rather of conscious existence, and from here one arrives at idealism.
Thank you very much