Why the Subjective State is Not the Cogito
The history of epistemology—the study of knowledge—is defined by the search for a non-arbitrary starting point, a first premise that can halt the infinite regress. René Descartes famously provided the most successful candidate with Cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”). Although Descartes was close, he did not start with the most fundamental: the Cogito itself is a complex starting point, which can be assailed. The irreducible first premise, which cannot be assailed nor denied, is actually the Subjective State (Premise 1) in the PIE Syllogism.
This difference is not merely a matter of semantics, as some have claimed; it is the critical distinction between a compound statement and an irreducible axiom. By replacing the Cogito with the Subjective State, the Gageian Epistemic Model (GEM) establishes an unassailable foundation for all warranted knowledge.
The Cogito: A Compound Event
Descartes’ great genius was realizing that the very act of doubt affirmed the existence of the Self doing the doubting. The Cogito works because the act of thinking is undeniable. But the act of thinking is not the most fundamental: thinking, doubting, and reasoning are all complex mental activities which happen within the Subjective State.
By beginning with “I think,” Descartes starts his system with a premise that already contains the highly sophisticated tool (Logic) he needs to prove later. He implicitly assumes the validity of the tool within his foundation.
In the language of the GEM, the Cogito is not the Subjective State itself, but rather the Inquiry process, which is Premise 3 in the PIE Syllogism. The act of inquiry is secondary to the state of being aware.
The Subjective State: The Irreducible Ground
The Subjective State, as defined by the GEM’s first axiom, demands only the acknowledgment of conscious awareness itself. The GEM makes no truth claims about the Subjective State, nor does it need to; it is the non-arbitrary container, or ground, for all mental events, regardless of its nature.
Premise 1 of the PIE Syllogism is The Axiom of Subjective State states: Every conscious agent has a non-arbitrary Subjective State.
The GEM’s defense of the Subjective State relies on the Performative Contradiction: any denial of conscious awareness must be executed by that very awareness, proving its necessity. This defense is more fundamental than the Cogito because it is based on the subjective state of being aware, not the act of thinking within that state of awareness.
The Structural Consequence
Although Descartes discovered the Self-Vindicating Certainty inherent in awareness, he did not start with the Self-Vindicating Precondition (P1), which is the Subjective State. Even if Descartes attempted to force the Cogito into the GEM’s structural procedure, his entire system would still be considered axiomatically arbitrary by the GEM’s standards, because the Cogito is an action-based proposition that displaces the necessary P1. This failure lands his methodology on the dogmatism horn of the Gage Pentalemma.
Because the Cogito is a compound statement, it prevented Descartes from warranting the necessity of his subsequent tools, such as Logic.
By starting with the Subjective State, the GEM ensures that every premise thereafter is built on a self-vindicating foundation of irreducible necessity. This Self-Vindicating Precondition is what allows the PIE Syllogism to be the only nonarbitrary, axiomatic chain of justification that successfully dissolves the Agrippa Trilemma.