Question

I’m currently reading your book Truth and Unstable, where you write that “I think” has no advantage over “I walk,” because the opposite of thought is the absence of thought. If so, you argued that this too is already an assumption that is no more necessary than “I walk.” But seemingly, the advantage of “I think” over “I walk” is obvious, because with walking one can always claim that it never actually happened and existed only in imagination. But what would you say about thought? Every person recognizes that he once thought, or imagined that he thought, at some point; and the existence of thought, or even of imagining it, is something familiar. And the one imagining or thinking the thought is “I,” which must necessarily exist in order for the thought that at some point passed through my mind to exist.